4M* 


51 


LINCOLN  ROOM 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY 


THE    WISDOM     OF 
ABRAHAM   LINCOLN 


THE   WISDOM 

OF 

ABRAHAM 
LINCOLN 

BEING  EXTRACTS  FROM 
THE  SPEECHES,  STATE 
PAPERS,  AND  LETTERS  OF 
THE  GREAT  PRESIDENT 


"...  his  clear-grained  human  worth 
And  brave  old  wisdom  of  sincerity  " 
—  LOWELL 


NEW  YORK 

A.  WESSELS  COMPANY 

1908 


Copyrighted  1908 

A.  WESSKLS  COMPANY 

New  York 


September,  1908 


S         K 

v> 


PREFACE 


"\TOST  books  of  selections  from  the 
v  writings    and    conversations    of 

Abraham  Lincoln  are  designed  primarily 
to  show  the  peculiarities  of  his  unique 
personality.  Composed  largely  of  his 
humorous  stories,  his  witty  and  satirical 
comments  upon  his  contemporaries,  and 
anecdotes  revealing  the  eccentricities  of 
his  genius,  they  uniformly  produce  a  cari- 
cature of  the  accidental  rather  than  essen- 

•  tial  features  of  him  who  stands  as  the 
ideal  type  of  American  manhood. 

In  this  anthology  this  limited  and  thor- 
oughly culled  field  has  been  avoided,  and 

"^the  broader  domain  of  Lincoln's  genius 
explored  to  find  the  fruits  of  his  ripened 
wisdom  rather  than  the  flowers  of  his 
brilliant  and  pungent  personality.  The 
mind  and  the  soul  of  the  man  are  shown, 
possibly  too  purely  and  severely.  Yet 


while  softening  details  are  lacking  in  this 
portrait,  all  the  strong  and  well-beloved 
lineaments  of  Lincoln  are  preserved,  — 
each  line  as  he  himself  drew  it.  Every 
passage  is  authentic  and  authoritative, 
the  source  and  date  of  its  utterance  being 
given.  The  extracts  are  arranged  in 
chronological  order.  The  index  of  the 
book  is  by  subjects. 

The  compiler  acknowledges  with  thanks 
permission  given  him  by  the  Current  Lit- 
erature Publishing  Company  to  use  the 
text  of  its  Centenary  Edition  of  the  Life 
and  Works  of  Abraham  Lincoln  in  making 
the  extracts. 

MARION  MILLS  MILLER. 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

THE  FIRST  AMERICAN  :  Extract  from  Har- 
vard Commemoration  Ode,  by  James  Russell 

Lowell xi 

EXTRACTS    FROM     LINCOLN'S    WRITINGS 

AND  SPEECHES  : 

Announcement  of  Candidacy  for  Legislature  i 
Speech  in  Legislature  on  the  State  Bank  .  j 
Address  on  the  Perpetuation  of  our  Political 

Institutions 2 

Speech  against  the  Van  Buren  Administra- 
tion   4 

Address    to    Washingtonian    (Temperance) 

Society 5 

Letter  to  George  E.  Pickett 8 

Notes  on  Protection 9 

Letter  to  Williamson  Durley n 

Letter  to  William  Johnston  with  Poem  .  .  n 
Letter  to  William  Johnston  with  Poem  .  .  13 
Speech  in  Congress  Arraigning  President 

Polk 15 

Letter  to  J.  M.  Peck 16 

Speech  in  Congress  on  Internal  Improve- 
ments     16 

Note:  "Were  I  President" 19 

Letter  to  William  H.  Herndon       ....     19 

Speech  in  Congress  on  Military  Heroes  .    .    20 

vii 


EXTRACTS  (Continued)  PAGE 

Notes  for  Lecture  on  Niagara  Falls    ...  22 

Notes  for  Law  Lecture 23 

Eulogy  of  Henry  Clay 25 

Notes  on  Government 27 

Speech  on  Repeal  of  Missouri  Compromise  29 

Letter  to  George  Robertson 40 

Letter  to  Joshua  F.  Speed 42 

Speech  at  First  Republican  Convention  .     .  43 

Speech  at  Galena 44 

Speech  in  Fr6mont  Campaign 46 

Speech  at  Republican  Banquet  in  Chicago  .  46 

Reply  to  Douglas  at  Springfield    ....  48 

Speech  Accepting  Nomination  for  Senator  .  52 

Reply  to  Douglas  at  Chicago 54 

Speech  at  Springfield  on  Douglas's  Presiden- 
tial Aspirations 59 

Speech  at  Lewiston 60 

Speech  at  Clinton 61 

Speech  at  Paris 61 

Speech  at  Edwardsville 61 

Debate  with  Douglas  at  Jonesborp      ...  62 

Debate  with  Douglas  at  Charleston     ...  65 

Debate  with  Douglas  at  Galesburg     ...  66 

Debate  with  Douglas  at  Quincy     ....  70 

Debate  with  Douglas  at  Alton 72 

Letter  to  J.  J.  Crittenden 76 

Letter  to  Dr.  A.  G.  Henry 76 

Letter  to  H.  D.  Sharpe 76 

Letter  to  Jefferson  Dinner  Committee  of 

Boston 76 

Letter  to  M.  W.  Delahay 79 

Letter  to  Dr.  Theodore  Canisius  ....  80 

Letter  to  Samuel  Galloway 80 

Speech  at  Columbus 82 

viii 


EXTRACTS  (Continued)  PAGE 

Speech  at  Cincinnati 83 

Address  at  Wisconsin  Agricultural  Fair     .  89 

Speech  at  Leaven  worth 95 

Lecture  on    Discoveries,   Inventions,  and 

Improvements 96 

Speech  at  Cooper  Union 104 

Speech  at  Hartford 108 

Speech  at  New  Haven in 

Letter  to  C.  H.  Fisher  .......  115 

Letter  to  William  S.  Speer 115 

Remarks  at  Indianapolis 116 

Remarks  to  the  Indiana  Legislature      .     .  116 

Remarks  to  Germans  at  Cincinnati  .     .     .  117 

Remarks  at  Pittsburg 118 

Remarks  at  New  York 120 

Remarks  to  the  Senate  of  New  Jersey  .     .  121 
Remarks  in  Independence  Hall,  Philadel- 
phia       122 

First  Inaugural  Address 122 

Message  to  Congress  in  Special  Session     .  126 

Letter  to  O.  H.  Browning 134 

Note  to  Major  Ramsey 136 

First  Annual  Message  to  Congress  .     .     .  136 

Letter  to  General  Hunter    ......  140 

Appeal  to  Border  State  Representatives     .  141 

Address  to  Negro  Deputation      ....  142 

Letter  to  Horace  Greeley 144 

Remarks  to  Chicago  Church  Delegation     .  145 

Preliminary  Emancipation  Proclamation    .  149 

Reply  to  Mrs.  Gurney 149 

Meditation  on  the  Divine  Will     ....  150 

Second  Annual  Message  to  Congress    .     .  151 

Letter  to  Miss  Fanny  McCullough   .     .     .  153 

On  Admission  of  West  Virginia  into  Union  153 
ix 


EXTRACTS  (Continued)  PAGB 
Message  to   Congress   on   United   States 

Notes. 154 

Letter    to    Workingmen    of    Manchester, 

England .  154 

Letter  to  General  Hooker 155 

Letter  to  Alexander  Reed    .     .     .     .     .     .  157 

Letter  to  General  Rosecrans 158 

Letter  to  Governor  Andrew  Johnson     .     .  158 

Proclamation  of  Fast  Day 158 

Letter  to  Erastus  Corning  and  Others   .    .  160 

Letter  to  Committee  of  Ohio  Democrats    .  160 

Letter  to  Governor  Seymour 163 

Letter  to  James  C.  Conkling 164 

Dedication  of  Gettysburg  Cemetery  .     .     .  166 
Remarks  to  Committee  of  New  York  Work- 
ingmen       168 

Remarks  at  Baltimore  Sanitary  Fair     .     .  168 
Letter  to  Committee  of  Baptists  ....  169 
Endorsement  of  Application  for  Employ- 
ment   170 

Remarks  to  i64th  Ohio  Regiment    ...  170 
Remarks  on  the  Bible  to  Negro  Delegation  171 
Remarks  on  Presidential  Election  at  Sere- 
nade       171 

Letter  to  Mrs.  Bixby 173 

Letter  to  Governor  Fletcher 174 

Second  Inaugural  Address 175 

Letter  to  Thurlow  Weed 176 

Remarks  to  an  Indiana  Regiment      .     .     .  177 

Speech  on  Reconstruction 178 


THE   FIRST  AMERICAN 

Extract  from  Ode  recited  at  the  Harvard  Comment- 
oration,  July  zit  i8t»s 

BY  JAMES  RUSSELL  LOWELL 


WHITHER  leads  the  path 
To  ampler  fates  that  leads  ? 
Not  down  through  flowery  meads, 

To  reap  an  aftermath 
Of  youth's  vainglorious  weeds ; 
But  up  the  steep,  amid  the  wrath 
And  shock  of  deadly-hostile  creeds, 
Where  the  world's  best  hope  and  stay 
By  battle's  flashes  gropes  a  desperate  way, 
And  every  turf  the  fierce  foot  clings  to  bleeds. 
Peace  hath  her  not  ignoble  wreath, 
Ere  yet  the  sharp,  decisive  word 
Light  the  black  lips  of  cannon,  and  the  sword 

Dreams  in  its  easeful  sheath ; 
But  some  day  the  live  coal  behind  the  thought, 
Whether  from  Baal's  stone  obscene, 
Or  from  the  shrine  serene 
Of  God's  pure  altar  brought, 
Bursts  up  in  flame  ;  the  war  of  tongue  and  pen 
Learns   with   what   deadly  purpose    it  was 
fraught, 

xi 


And,  helpless  in  the  fiery  passion  caught, 
Shakes  all  the  pillared  state  with  shock  of 

men : 

Some  day  the  soft  Ideal  that  we  wooed 
Confronts  us  fiercely,  foe-beset,  pursued, 
And  cries  reproachful :  "  Was  it,  then,  my 

praise, 
And  not  myself  was  loved  ?     Prove  now  thy 

truth ; 

I  claim  of  thee  the  promise  of  thy  youth ; 
Give  me  thy  life,  or  cower  in  empty  phrase, 
The  victim  of  thy  genius,  not  its  mate  !  " 
Life  may  be  given  in  many  ways, 
And  loyalty  to  Truth  be  sealed 
As  bravely  in  the  closet  as  the  field, 
So  bountiful  is  Fate  ; 
But  then  to  stand  beside  her, 
When  craven  churls  deride  her, 
To  front  a  lie  in  arms  and  not  to  yield, 
This  shows,  methinks,  God's  plan 
And  measure  of  a  stalwart  man, 
Limbed  like  the  old  heroic  breeds, 
Who  stands  self-poised  on  manhood's  solid 

earth, 

Not  forced  to  frame  excuses  for  his  birth, 
Fed  from  within  with  all  the  strength  he 
needs. 


Such  was  he,  our  Martyr-Chief, 

Whom  late  the  Nation  he  had  led, 
With  ashes  on  her  head, 

Wept  with  the  passion  of  an  angry  grief : 
xii 


Forgive  me,  if  from  present  things  I  turn 
To  speak  what  in  my  heart  will  beat  and  burn, 
And  hang  my  wreath  on  his  world-honored 

urn. 

Nature,  they  say,  doth  dote, 
And  cannot  make  a  man 
Save  on  some  worn-out  plan, 
Repeating  us  by  rote : 
For  him  her  Old-World  moulds  aside  she 

threw, 
And,  choosing  sweet  clay  from  the  breast 

Of  the  unexhausted  West, 
With  stuff  untainted  shaped  a  hero  new, 
Wise,  steadfast  in  the  strength  of  God,  and 

true. 

How  beautiful  to  see 

Once  more  a  shepherd  of  mankind  indeed, 
Who  loved  his  charge,  but  never  loved  to 

lead; 

One  whose  meek  flock  the  people  joyed  to  be, 
Not  lured  by  any  cheat  of  birth, 
But  by  his  clear-grained  human  worth, 
And  brave  old  wisdom  of  sincerity  1 
They  knew  that  outward  grace  is  dust ; 
They  could  not  choose  but  trust 
In  that  sure-footed  mind's  unfaltering  skill, 

And  supple-tempered  will 
That  bent  like  perfect  steel  to  spring  again 

and  thrust. 

His  was  no  lonely  mountain-peak  of  mind, 
Thrusting  to  thin  air  o'er  our  cloudy  bars, 
A  sea-mark  now,  now  lost  in  vapors  blind ; 
xiii 


Broad  prairie  rather,  genial,  level-lined, 

Fruitful  and  friendly  for  all  human-kind, 

Yet  also  nigh  to  heaven  and  loved  of  loftiest 

stars. 

Nothing  of  Europe  here, 
Or,  then,  of  Europe  fronting  mornward  still, 

Ere  any  names  of  Serf  and  Peer 
Could  Nature's  equal  scheme  deface 

And  thwart  her  genial  will ; 
Here  was  a  type  of  the  true  elder  race, 
And  one  of  Plutarch's  men  talked  with  us 

face  to  face. 

I  praise  him  not ;  it  were  too  late ; 
And  some  innative  weakness  there  must  be 
In  him  who  condescends  to  victory 
Such  as  the  Present  gives,  and  cannot  wait, 
Safe  in  himself  as  in  a  fate. 
So  always  firmly  he : 
He  knew  to  bide  his  time, 
And  can  his  fame  abide, 
Still  patient  in  his  simple  faith  sublime, 

Till  the  wise  years  decide. 
Great  captains,  with  their  guns  and  drums, 
Disturb  our  judgment  for  the  hour, 

But  at  last  silence  comes ; 
These  all  are  gone,  and,  standing  like  a 

tower, 

Our  children  shall  behold  his  fame, 
The    kindly-earnest,    brave,    foreseeing 

man, 

Sagacious,  patient,  dreading  praise,  not  blame, 
New  birth  of  our  new  soil,  the  first  American, 
xiv 


THE   WISDOM   OF 

ABRAHAM    LINCOLN 


TfELLOW-CITIZENS:  I  presume  you 
*  all  know  who  I  am.  I  am  humble 
Abraham  Lincoln.  I  have  been  solicited  by 
many  friends  to  become  a  candidate  for  the 
Legislature.  My  politics  are  short  and  sweet, 
like  the  old  woman's  dance.  I  am  in  favor 
of  a  national  bank.  I  am  in  favor  of  the 
internal  improvement  system,  and  a  high 
protective  tariff.  These  are  my  sentiments 
and  political  principles.  If  elected,  I  shall 
be  thankful ;  if  not,  it  will  be  all  the  same. — 
Announcement  of  Candidacy  for  Legislature; 
March,  1832. 

I  [AM]  opposed  to  making  an  examination 
[of  the  State  Bank]  without  legal  authority. 
I  am  opposed  to  encouraging  that  lawless  and 
mobocratic  spirit,  whether  in  relation  to  the 
Bank  or  anything  else,  which  is  already 
abroad  in  the  land;  and  is  spreading  with 
rapid  and  fearful  impetuosity  to  the  ultimate 
overthrow  of  every  institution,  of  every  moral 
principle,  in  which  persons  and  property  have 


hitherto  found  security.  —  On  Inquiry  into 
Management  of  the  State  Bank;  January, 
1837. 

AT  what  point  shall  we  expect  the  approach 
*•*•  of  danger  [to  our  republican  institu- 
tions]? By  what  means  shall  we  fortify 
against  it?  Shall  we  expect  some  transat- 
lantic military  giant  to  step  the  ocean  and 
crush  us  at  a  blow  ?  Never !  All  the  armies 
of  Europe,  Asia,  and  Africa  combined,  with 
all  the  treasure  of  the  earth  (our  own  ex- 
cepted)  in  their  military  chest,  with  a  Bona- 
parte for  a  commander,  could  not  by  force 
take  a  drink  from  the  Ohio  or  make  a  track  on 
the  Blue  Ridge  in  a  trial  of  a  thousand  years. 

At  what  point  then  is  the  approach  of 
danger  to  be  expected?  I  answer,  If  it  ever 
reach  us  it  must  spring  up  amongst  us;  it 
cannot  come  from  abroad.  If  destruction  be 
our  lot  we  must  ourselves  be  its  author  and 
finisher.  As  a  nation  of  freemen  we  must  live 
through  all  time  or  die  by  suicide.  .  .  . 

Turn  to  that  horror-striking  scene  at  St. 
Louis.  A  mulatto  man  by  the  name  of  Mcln- 
tosh  was  seized  in  the  street,  dragged  to  the 
suburbs  of  the  city,  chained  to  a  tree,  and 
actually  burned  to  death;  and  all  within  a 
single  hour  from  the  time  he  had  been  a  free- 
man attending  to  his  own  business  and  at 
peace  with  the  world. 

Such  are  the  effects  of  mob  law,  and  such 
are  the  scenes  becoming  more  and  more  fre- 
2 


quent  in  this  land  so  lately  famed  for  love  of 
law  and  order,  and  the  stories  of  which  have 
even  now  grown  too  familiar  to  attract  any- 
thing more  than  an  idle  remark. 

But  you  are  perhaps  ready  to  ask,  "What 
has  this  to  do  with  the  perpetuation  of  our 
political  institutions?"  I  answer,  "It  has 
much  to  do  with  it."  ...  By  such  examples, 
by  instances  of  the  perpetrators  of  such  acts 
going  unpunished,  the  lawless  in  spirit  are 
encouraged  to  become  lawless  in  practice; 
and  having  been  used  to  no  restraint  but 
dread  of  punishment,  they  thus  become  ab- 
solutely unrestrained.  Having  ever  regarded 
government  as  their  deadliest  bane,  they 
make  a  jubilee  of  the  suspension  of  its  opera- 
tions, and  pray  for  nothing  so  much  as  its 
total  annihilation.  While,  on  the  other  hand, 
good  men,  men  who  love  tranquillity,  who 
desire  to  abide  by  the  laws  and  enjoy  their 
benefits,  who  would  gladly  spill  their  blood 
in  the  defense  of  their  country,  seeing  their 
property  destroyed,  their  families  insulted, 
and  their  lives  endangered,  their  persons 
injured,  and  seeing  nothing  in  prospect  that 
forebodes  a  change  for  the  better,  become 
tired  of  and  disgusted  with  a  government 
that  offers  them  no  protection,  and  are  not 
much  averse  to  a  change  in  which  they  im- 
agine they  have  nothing  to  lose.  Thus,  then, 
by  the  operation  of  this  mobocratic  spirit 
which  all  must  admit  is  now  abroad  in  the 
land,  the  strongest  bulwark  of  any  govern- 

3 


ment,  and  particularly  of  those  constituted 
like  ours  —  I  mean  the  attachment  of  the 
people  —  may  effectually  be  broken  down 
and  destroyed.  ...  At  such  a  time,  and 
under  such  circumstances,  men  of  sufficient 
talent  and  ambition  will  not  be  wanting  to 
seize  the  opportunity,  strike  the  blow,  and 
overturn  that  fair  fabric  which  for  the  last 
half  century  has  been  the  fondest  hope  of  the 
lovers  of  freedom  throughout  the  world.  — 
The  Perpetuation  of  our  Political  Institu- 
tions. An  address  to  the  Young  Men's  Lyceum 
of  Springfield,  III.;  January  27,  1837. 

MR.  LAMBORN  insists  that  the  differ- 
ence between  the  Van  Buren  party  and 
the  Whigs  is  that,  although  the  former  some- 
times err  in  practice,  they  are  always  correct 
in  principle,  whereas  the  latter  are  wrong  in 
principle;  and,  better  to  impress  this  propo- 
sition, he  uses  a  figurative  expression  in  these 
words:  "The  Democrats  are  vulnerable  in 
the  heel,  but  they  are  sound  in  the  head  and 
the  heart."  The  first  branch  of  the  figure  — 
that  is,  that  the  Democrats  are  vulnerable  in 
the  heel  —  I  admit  is  not  merely  figuratively, 
but  literally  true.  Who  that  looks  but  for  a 
moment  at  their  Swartwouts,  their  Prices, 
their  Harringtons,  and  their  hundreds  of 
others,  scampering  away  with  the  public 
money  to  Texas,  to  Europe,  and  to  every  spot 
of  the  earth  where  a  villain  may  hope  to  find 
refuge  from  justice,  can  at  all  doubt  that  they 

4 


are  most  distressingly  affected  in  their  heels 
with  a  species  of  "running  itch"?  It  seems 
that  this  malady  of  their  heels  operates  on 
these  sound-headed  and  honest-hearted  crea- 
tures very  much  like  the  cork  leg  in  the  comic 
song  did  on  its  owner;  which,  when  he  had 
once  got  started  on  it,  the  more  he  tried  to 
stop  it,  the  more  it  would  run  away.  At  the 
hazard  of  wearing  this  point  threadbare,  I 
will  relate  an  anecdote  which  seems  too  strik- 
ingly in  point  to  be  omitted.  A  witty  Irish 
soldier,  who  was  always  boasting  of  his 
bravery  when  no  danger  was  near,  but  who 
invariably  retreated  without  orders  at  the  first 
charge  of  an  engagement,  being  asked  by  his 
captain  why  he  did  so,  replied:  "Captain,  I 
have  a£  brave  a  heart  as  Julius  Caesar  ever 
had ;  but,  somehow  or  other,  whenever  danger 
approaches,  my  cowardly  legs  will  run  away 
with  it."  —  Against  the  Subtreasury  and 
other  Policies  of  the  Van  Bur  en  Administra- 
tion. Speech  at  Springfield,  III;  December, 
1839. 

T  T  THEN  the  conduct  of  men  is  designed  to 
VV  be  influenced,  persuasion,  kind,  un- 
assuming persuasion,  should  ever  be  adopted. 
It  is  an  old  and  a  true  maxim  "that  a  drop  of 
honey  catches  more  flies  than  a  gallon  of  gall." 
So  with  men.  It  you  would  win  a  man  to  your 
cause,  first  convince  him  that  you  are  his 
sincere  friend.  Therein  is  a  drop  of  honey 
that  catches  his  heart,  which,  say  what  he 

5 


will,  is  the  great  highroad  to  his  reason,  and 
which,  when  once  gained,  you  will  find  but 
little  trouble  in  convincing  his  judgment  of 
the  justice  of  your  cause,  if  indeed  that  cause 
really  be  a  just  one.  On  the  contrary,  assume 
to  dictate  to  his  judgment,  or  to  command  his 
action,  or  to  mark  him  as  one  to  be  shunned 
and  despised,  and  he  will  retreat  within  him- 
self, close  all  the  avenues  to  his  head  and  his 
heart ;  and  though  your  cause  be  naked  truth 
itself,  transformed  to  the  heaviest  lance, 
harder  than  steel,  and  sharper  than  steel  can 
be  made,  and  though  you  throw  it  with  more 
than  herculean  force  and  precision,  you  shall 
be  no  more  able  to  pierce  him  than  to  pene- 
trate the  hard  shell  of  a  tortoise  with  a  rye 
straw.  Such  is  man,  and  so  must  he  be  under- 
stood by  those  who  would  lead  him,  even  to 
his  own  best  interests. 

But  it  is  said  by  some  that  men  will  think 
and  act  for  themselves;  that  none  will  disuse 
spirits  or  anything  else  because  his  neighbors 
do;  and  that  moral  influence  is  not  that 
powerful  engine  contended  for.  Let  us  ex- 
amine this.  Let  me  ask  the  man  who  could 
maintain  this  position  most  stiffly,  what  com- 
pensation he  will  accept  to  go  to  church  some 
Sunday  and  sit  during  the  sermon  with  his 
wife's  bonnet  upon  his  head?  Not  a  trifle, 
I'll  venture.  And  why  not?  There  would 
be  nothing  irreligious  in  it,  nothing  immoral, 
nothing  uncomfortable  —  then  why  not  ?  Is 
6 


it  not  because  there  would  be  something 
egregiously  unfashionable  in  it?  Then  it  is 
the  influence  of  fashion;  and  what  is  the 
influence  of  fashion  but  the  influence  that 
other  people's  actions  have  on  our  actions  — 
the  strong  inclination  each  of  us  feels  to  do 
as  we  see  all  our  neighbors  do?  Nor  is  the 
influence  of  fashion  confined  to  any  particular 
thing  or  class  of  things;  it  is  just  as  strong  on 
one  subject  as  another.  Let  us  make  it  as 
unfashionable  to  withhold  our  names  from 
the  temperance  cause  as  for  husbands  to  wear 
their  wives'  bonnets  to  church,  and  instances 
will  be  just  as  rare  in  the  one  case  as  the  other. 

Of  our  political  revolution  of  '76  we  are  all 
justly  proud.  It  has  given  us  a  degree  of 
political  freedom  far  exceeding  that  of  any 
other  nation  of  the  earth.  In  it  the  world  has 
found  a  solution  of  the  long-mooted  problem 
as  to  the  capability  of  man  to  govern  himself. 
In  it  was  the  germ  which  has  vegetated,  and 
still  is  to  grow  and  expand  into  the  universal 
liberty  of  mankind.  But,  with  all  these  glori- 
ous results,  past,  present,  and  to  come,  it  had 
its  evils  too.  It  breathed  forth  famine,  swam 
in  blood,  and  rode  in  fire;  and  long,  long 
after,  the  orphan's  cry  and  the  widow's  wail 
continued  to  break  the  sad  silence  that  ensued. 
These  were  the  price,  the  inevitable  price, 
paid  for  the  blessings  it  bought. 

Turn  now  to  the  temperance  revolution. 
In  it  we  shall  find  a  stronger  bondage  broken, 
7 


a  viler  slavery  manumitted,  a  greater  tyrant 
deposed;  in  it,  more  of  want  supplied,  more 
disease  healed,  more  sorrow  assuaged.  By 
it  no  orphans  starving,  no  widows  weeping. 
By  it  none  wounded  in  feeling,  none  injured 
in  interest;  even  the  dram-maker  and  dram- 
seller  will  have  glided  into  other  occupations 
so  gradually  as  never  to  have  felt  the  change, 
and  will  stand  ready  to  join  all  others  in  the 
universal  song  of  gladness.  And  what  a 
noble  ally  this  to  the  cause  of  political  free- 
dom; with  such  an  aid  its  march  cannot  fail 
to  be  on  and  on,  till  every  son  of  earth  shall 
drink  in  rich  fruition  the  sorrow-quenching 
draughts  of  perfect  liberty.  Happy  day  when 
—  all  appetites  controlled,  all  poisons  sub- 
dued, all  matter  subjected  —  mind,  all-con- 
quering mind,  shall  live  and  move,  the 
monarch  of  the  world.  Glorious  consumma- 
tion !  Hail,  fall  of  fury !  Reign  of  reason,  all 
hail!  —  Address  to  the  Washingtonian  Society 
of  Springfield,  III.;  February  22,  1842. 

I  HAVE  just  told  the  folks  here  in  Spring- 
field on  this  i  nth  anniversary  of  the 
birth  of  him  whose  name,  mightiest  in  the 
cause  of  civil  liberty,  still  mightiest  in  the 
cause  of  moral  reformation,  we  mention  in 
solemn  awe,  in  naked,  deathless  splendor, 
that  the  one  victory  we  can  ever  call  complete 
will  be  that  one  which  proclaims  that  there 
is  not  one  slave  or  one  drunkard  on  the  face 
of  God's  green  earth.  Recruit  for  this  victory. 
8 


.  .  .  Now,  l>oy,  on  your  march,  don't  you  go 
and  forget  the  old  maxim  that  "one  drop  of 
honey  catches  more  flies  than  a  half -gallon  of 
gall."  Load  your  musket  with  this  maxim, 
and  smoke  it  in  your  pipe.  —  Letter  to  George 
E.  Pickett;  February  22,  1842. 

IN  the  early  days  of  our  race  the  Almighty 
said  to  the  first  of  our  race,  "In  the  sweat 
of  thy  face  shalt  thou  eat  bread'';  and  since 
then,  if  we  except  the  light  and  the  air  of 
heaven,  no  good  thing  has  been  or  can  be 
enjoyed  by  us  without  having  first  cost  labor. 
And  inasmuch  as  most  good  things  are  pro- 
duced bv  labor,  it  follows  that  all  such  things 
of  right  oelong  to  those  whose  labor  has  pro- 
duced them.  But  it  has  so  happened,  in  all 
ages  of  the  world,  that  some  have  labored, 
and  others  have  without  labor  enjoyed  a 
large  proportion  of  the  fruits.  This  is  wrong, 
and  should  not  continue.  To  secure  to  each 
laborer  the  whole  product  of  his  labor,  or  as 
nearly  as  possible,  is  a  worthy  object  of  any 
good  government. 

But  then  a  question  arises,  How  can  a  gov- 
ernment best  effect  this  ?  In  our  own  country, 
in  its  present  condition,  will  the  protective 
principle  advance  or  retard  this  object  ?  Upon 
this  subject  the  habits  of  our  whole  species 
fall  into  three  great  classes  —  useful  labor, 
useless  labor,  and  idleness.  Of  these  the  first 
only  is  meritorious,  and  to  it  all  the  products 
of  labor  rightfully  belong;  but  the  two  latter, 

9 


while  they  exist,  are  heavy  pensioners  upon 
the  first,  robbing  it  of  a  large  portion  of  its 
just  rights.  The  only  remedy  for  this  is  to, 
so  far  as  possible,  drive  useless  labor  and 
idleness  out  of  existence.  And,  first,  as  to 
useless  labor.  Before  making  war  upon  this, 
we  must  learn  to  distinguish  it  from  the  use- 
ful. It  appears  to  me  that  all  labor  done 
directly  and  indirectly  in  carrying  articles  to 
the  place  of  consumption,  which  could  have 
been  produced  in  sufficient  abundance,  with 
as  little  labor,  at  the  place  of  consumption  as 
at  the  place  they  were  carried  from,  is  useless 
labor.  Let  us  take  a  few  examples  of  the 
application  of  this  principle  to  our  own 
country.  Iron,  and  everything  made  of  iron, 
can  be  produced  in  sufficient  abundance,  and 
with  as  little  labor,  in  the  United  States  as 
anywhere  else  in  the  world;  therefore  all 
labor  done  in  bringing  iron  and  its  fabrics 
from  a  foreign  country  to  the  United  States 
is  useless  labor.  .  .  . 

We  may  easily  see  that  the  cost  of  this  use- 
less labor  is  very  heavy.  It  includes  not  only 
the  cost  of  the  actual  carriage,  but  also  the 
insurances  of  every  kind,  and  the  profits  of 
the  merchants  through  whose  hands  it  passes. 
All  these  create  a  heavy  burden  necessarily 
falling  upon  the  useful  labor  connected  with 
such  articles,  either  depressing  the  price  to 
the  producer  or  advancing  it  to  the  consumer, 
or,  what  is  more  probable,  doing  both  in  part. 

.  .  [Therefore]  the  abandonment  of  the  pro- 


tective  policy  by  the  American  government 
must  result  in  the  increase  of  both  useless 
labor  and  idleness,  and  so,  in  proportion, 
must  produce  want  and  ruin  among  our 
people.  —  Notes  on  Protection  jotted  down 
while  Congressman-elect;  December,  1847. 

I  HOLD  it  to  be  a  paramount  duty  of  us  in 
the  free  States,  due  to  the  Union  of  the 
States,  and  perhaps  to  liberty  itself  (paradox 
though  it  may  seem),  to  let  the  slavery  of  the 
other  States  alone ;  while,  on  the  other  hand, 
I  hold  it  to  be  equally  clear  that  we  should 
never  knowingly  lend  ourselves,  directly  or 
indirectly,  to  prevent  that  slavery  from  dying 
a  natural  death  —  to  find  new  places  for  it  to 
live  in,  when  it  can  no  longer  exist  in  the  old. 
—  Letter  to  Williamson  Durley ;  October  3, 
1845. 

MY  childhood's  home  I  see  again, 
And  sadden  with  the  view; 
And  still,  as  memory  crowds  my  brain, 
There's  pleasure  in  it  too. 

O  Memory !  thou  midway  world 

'Twixt  earth  and  paradise, 
Where  things  decayed  and  loved  ones  lost 

In  dreamy  shadows  rise, 

And,  freed  from  all  that's  earthly  vile, 
Seem  hallowed,  pure,  and  bright, 

Like  scenes  in  some  enchanted  isle 
All  bathed  in  liquid  light. 
n 


As  dusky  mountains  please  the  eye 

When  twilight  chases  day; 
As  bugle-notes  that,  passing  by, 

In  distance  die  away; 

As  leaving  some  grand  waterfall, 

We,  lingering,  list  its  roar  — 
So  memory  will  hallow  all 

We've  known,  but  know  no  more. 

Near  twenty  years  have  passed  away 

Since  here  I  bid  farewell 
To  woods  and  fields,  and  scenes  of  play, 

And  playmates  loved  so  well. 

Where  many  were,  but  few  remain 

Of  old  familiar  things; 
But  seeing  them,  to  mind  again 

The  lost  and  absent  brings. 

The  friends  I  left  that  parting  day, 
How  changed,  as  time  has  sped ! 
Young  childhood  grown,   strong   manhood 

gray, 
And  half  of  all  are  dead. 

I  hear  the  loved  survivors  tell 
How  naught  from  death  could  save 

Till  every  sound  appears  a  knell, 
And  every  spot  a  grave. 

I  range  the  fields  with  pensive  tread, 

And  pace  the  hollow  rooms, 
And  feel  (companion  of  the  dead) 

I'm  living  in  the  tombs. 

Letter  to  William  Johnston  ;  April  18,  1846. 

12 


FRIEND  JOHNSTON,— You  remember 
when  I  wrote  you  from  Tremont  last 
spring,  sending  you  a  little  canto  of  what  I 
called  poetry,  I  promised  to  bore  you  with 
another  some  time.  I  now  fulfill  the  promise. 
The  subject  of  the  present  one  is  an  insane 
man;  his  name  is  Matthew  Gentry.  He  is 
three  years  older  than  I,  and  when  we  were 
boys  we  went  to  school  together.  He  was 
rather  a  bright  lad,  and  the  son  of  the  rich 
man  of  a  very  poor  neighborhood.  At  the 
age  of  nineteen  he  unaccountably  became 
furiously  mad,  from  which  condition  he  grad- 
ually settled  down  into  harmless  insanity. 
When,  as  I  told  you  in  my  other  letter,  I 
visited  my  old  home  in  the  fall  of  1844,  I 
found  him  still  lingering  in  this  wretched  con- 
dition. In  my  poetizing  mood,  I  could  not 
forget  the  impression  his  case  made  upon  me. 
Here  is  the  result: 

But  here's  an  object  more  of  dread 
Than  aught  the  grave  contains  — 

A  human  form  with  reason  fled, 
While  wretched  life  remains. 

When  terror  spread,  and  neighbors  ran 
Your  dangerous  strength  to  bind, 

And  soon,  a  howling,  crazy  man, 
Your  limbs  were  fast  confined: 

How  then  you  strove  and  shrieked  aloud, 
Your  bones  and  sinews  bared; 

And  fiendish  on  the  gazing  crowd 
With  burning  eyeballs  glared; 


And  begged  and  swore,  and  wept  and  prayed, 

With  maniac  laughter  joined; 
How  fearful  were  these  signs  displayed 

By  pangs  that  killed  the  mind! 

And  when  at  length  the  drear  and  long 

Time  soothed  thy  fiercer  woes, 
How  plaintively  thy  mournful  song 

Upon  the  still  night  rose ! 

I've  heard  it  oft  as  if  I  dreamed, 

Far  distant,  sweet  and  lone, 
The  funeral  dirge  it  ever  seemed 

Of  reason  dead  and  gone. 

To  drink  its  strains  I've  stole  away, 

All  stealthily  and  still, 
Ere  yet  the  rising  god  of  day 

Had  streaked  the  eastern  hill. 

Air  held  her  breath;  trees  with  the  spell 
Seemed  sorrowing  angels  round, 

Whose  swelling  tears  in  dewdrops  fell 
Upon  the  listening  ground. 

But  this  is  past,  and  naught  remains 
That  raised  thee  o'er  the  brute; 

Thy  piercing  shrieks  and  soothing  strain 
Are  like,  forever  mute. 

Now  fare  thee  well !     More  thou  the  cause 

Than  subject  now  of  woe. 
All  mental  pangs  by  time's  kind  laws 

Hast  lost  the  power  to  know, 

'4 


O  death !  thou  awe-inspiring  prince 

That  keepst  the  world  in  fear, 
Why  dost  thou  tear  more  blest  ones  hence, 

And  leave  him  lingering  here? 
Letter  to  William  Johnston;  September  6, 1846. 


T  F  he  [President  Polk]  can  show  that  the  soil 
A  was  ours  where  the  first  blood  of  the  war 
was  shed,  then  I  am  with  him.  .  .  .  But  if 
he  can  not  or  will  not  do  this,  —  if  on  any 
pretense  or  no  pretense  he  shall  refuse  or 
omit  it,  —  then  I  shall  be  fully  convinced  of 
what  I  more  than  suspect  already,  —  that  he 
is  deeply  conscious  of  being  in  the  wrong; 
that  he  feels  the  blood  of  this  war,  like  the 
blood  of  Abel,  is  crying  to  Heaven  against 
him;  that  originally  having  some  strong  mo- 
tive —  what,  I  will  not  stop  now  to  give  my 
opinion  concerning  —  to  involve  the  two 
countries  in  a  war,  and  trusting  to  escape 
scrutiny  by  fixing  the  public  gaze  upon  the 
exceeding  brightness  of  military  glory,  — 
that  attractive  rainbow  that  rises  in  showers 
of  blood  —  that  serpent's  eye  that  charms  to 
destroy,  —  he  plunged  into  it,  and  has  swept 
on  and  on  till,  disappointed  in  his  calculation 
of  the  ease  with  which  Mexico  might  be  sub- 
dued, he  now  finds  himself  he  knows  not 
where.  How  like  the  half-insane  mumbling 
of  a  fever  dream  is  the  whole  war  part  of  his 
late  message !  .  .  .  His  mind,  taxed  beyond 
its  power,  is  running  hither  and  thither,  like 

'5 


some  tortured  creature  on  a  burning  surface, 
finding  no  position  on  which  it  can  settle  down 
to  be  at  ease.  ...  He  is  a  bewildered,  con- 
founded, and  miserably  perplexed  man.  God 
grant  he  may  be  able  to  show  there  is  not 
something  about  his  conscience  more  painful 
than  all  his  mental  perplexity.  —  Speech  in 
Congress;  January  12,  1848. 


POSSIBLY  you  consider  those  acts  [of  ag- 
gression upon  the  Mexicans]  too  small 
for  notice.  Would  you  venture  to  so  consider 
them  had  they  been  committed  by  any  nation 
on  earth  against  the  humblest  of  our  people  ? 
I  know  you  would  not.  Then  I  ask,  is  the 
precept  "Whatsoever  ye  would  that  men 
should  do  to  you,  do  ye  even  so  to  them" 
obsolete?  of  no  force?  of  no  application?  — 
Letter  to  J.  M.  Peck;  May  21,  1848. 


BUT  suppose,  after  all,  there  should  be 
some  degree  of  inequality  [in  the  govern- 
ment making  internal  improvements  through- 
out the  various  States].  Inequality  is  certainly 
never  to  be  embraced  for  its  own  sake ;  but  is 
every  good  thing  to  be  discarded  which  may 
be  inseparably  connected  with  some  degree 
of  it  ?  If  so,  we  must  discard  all  government. 
This  capitol  is  built  at  the  public  expense,  for 
the  public  benefit;  but  does  any  one  doubt 
that  it  is  of  some  peculiar  local  advantage  to 
16 


the  property-holders  and  business  people  of 
Washington?  Shall  we  remove  it  for  this 
reason  ?  And  if  so,  where  shall  we  set  it  down, 
and  be  free  from  the  difficulty  ?  To  make  sure 
of  our  object,  shall  we  locate  it  nowhere,  and 
have  Congress  hereafter  to  hold  its  sessions, 
as  the  loafer  lodged,  "in  spots  about"?  I 
make  no  allusion  to  the  present  President 
when  I  say  there  are  few  stronger  cases  in  this 
world  of  "burden  to  the  many  and  benefit  to 
the  few,"  of  "inequality,"  than  the  presidency 
itself  is  by  some  thought  to  be.  An  honest 
laborer  digs  coal  at  about  seventy  cents  a  day, 
while  the  President  digs  abstractions  at  about 
seventy  dollars  a  day.  The  coal  is  clearly 
worth  more  than  the  abstractions,  and  yet 
what  a  monstrous  inequality  in  the  prices! 
Does  the  President,  for  this  reason,  propose 
to  abolish  the  presidency  ?  He  does  not,  and 
he  ought  not.  The  true  rule  in  determining  to 
embrace  or  reject  anything,  is  not  whether  it 
have  any  evil  in  it,  but  whether  it  have  more 
of  evil  than  of  good.  There  are  few  things 
wholly  evil  or  wholly  good.  Almost  every- 
thing, especially  of  government  policy,  is  an 
inseparable  compound  of  the  two;  so  that 
our  best  judgment  of  the  preponderance  be- 
tween them  is  continually  demanded.  On 
this  principle  the  President,  his  friends,  and 
the  world  generally  act  on  most  subjects. 
Why  not  apply  it,  then,  upon  this  question? 
Why,  as  to  improvements,  magnify  the  evil, 
and  stoutly  refuse  to  see  any  good  in  them  ? 

2  I7 


Mr.  Chairman,  the  President  seems  to 
think  that  enough  may  be  done,  in  the  way  of 
improvements,  by  means  of  tonnage  duties 
under  State  authority,  with  the  consent  of  the 
General  Government.  Now  I  suppose  this 
matter  of  tonnage  duties  is  well  enough  in  its 
own  sphere.  I  suppose  it  may  be  efficient, 
and  perhaps  sufficient,  to  make  slight  improve- 
ments and  repairs  in  harbors  already  in  use 
and  not  much  out  of  repair.  But  if  I  have  any 
correct  general  idea  of  it,  it  must  be  wholly 
inefficient  for  any  general  beneficent  purposes 
of  improvement.  I  know  very  little,  or  rather 
nothing  at  all,  of  the  practical  matter  of  levy- 
ing and  collecting  tonnage  duties;  but  I  sup- 
pose one  of  its  principles  must  be  to  lay  a 
duty  for  the  improvement  of  any  particular 
harbor  upon  the  tonnage  coming  into  that 
harbor;  to  do  otherwise  —  to  collect  money 
in  one  harbor,  to  be  expended  on  improve- 
ments in  another  —  would  be  an  extremely 
aggravated  form  of  that  inequality  which  the 
President  so  much  deprecates.  If  I  be  right 
in  this,  how  could  we  make  any  entirely  new 
improvement  by  means  of  tonnage  duties? 
How  make  a  road,  a  canal,  or  clear  a  greatly 
obstructed  river?  The  idea  that  we  could 
involves  the  same  absurdity  as  the  Irish  bull 
about  the  new  boots.  "I  shall  niver  git  'em 
on,"  says  Patrick,  "till  I  wear  'em  a  day  or 
two,  and  stretch  'em  a  little."  We  shall  never 
make  a  canal  by  tonnage  duties  until  it  shall 
18 


already  have  been  made  awhile,  so  the  ton- 
nage can  get  into  it  —  Speech  in  Congress; 
June  20,  1848. 


WERE  I  President,  I  should  desire  the 
legislation  of  the  country  to  rest  with 
Congress,  uninfluenced  by  the  executive  in 
its  origin  or  progress,  and  undisturbed  by  the 
\eto  unless  in  very  special  and  clear  cases.  — 
Vote;  July,  1848. 


1  CANNOT  but  think  there  is  some  mis- 
take in  your  impression  of  the  motives  of 
the  old  men.  I  suppose  I  am  now  one  of  the 
old  men;  and  I  declare,  on  my  veracity, 
which  I  think  is  good  with  you,  that  nothing 
could  afford  me  more  satisfaction  than  to 
learn  that  you  and  others  of  my  young  friends 
at  home  are  doing  battle  in  the  contest,  and 
endearing  themselves  to  the  people,  and  tak- 
ing a  stand  far  above  any  I  have  ever  been 
able  to  reach  in  their  admiration.  I  cannot 
conceive  that  other  old  men  feel  differently. 
Of  course  I  cannot  demonstrate  what  I  say; 
but  I  was  young  once,  and  I  am  sure  I  was 
never  ungenerously  thrust  back.  I  hardly 
know  what  to  say.  The  way  for  a  young  man 
to  rise  is  to  improve  himself  every  way  he  can, 
never  suspecting  that  anybody  wishes  to 
hinder  him.  Allow  me  to  assure  you  that 
suspicion  and  jealousy  never  did  help  any 

19 


man  in  any  situation.  There  may  sometimes 
be  ungenerous  attempts  to  keep  a  young  man 
down;  and  they  will  succeed,  too,  if  he  allows 
his  mind  to  be  diverted  from  its  true  channel 
to  brood  over  the  attempted  injury.  Cast 
about,  and  see  if  this  feeling  has  not  injured 
every  person  you  have  ever  known  to  fall 
into  it. 

Now,  in  what  I  have  said,  I  am  sure  you 
will  suspect  nothing  but  sincere  friendship. 
I  would  save  you  from  a  fatal  error.  You 
have  been  a  laborious,  studious  young  man. 
You  are  far  better  informed  on  almost  all 
subjects  than  I  have  ever  been.  You  cannot 
fail  in  any  laudable  object,  unless  you  allow 
your  mind  to  be  improperly  directed.  —  Letter 
to  William  H.  Herndon;  July  10,  1848. 


A  FELLOW  once  advertised  that  he  had 
made  a  discovery  by  which  he  could 
make  a  new  man  out  of  an  old  one,  and  have 
enough  of  the  stuff  left  to  make  a  little  yellow 
dog.  Just  such  a  discovery  has  General  Jack- 
son's popularity  been  to  you  [Democrats]. 
You  not  only  twice  made  President  of  him 
out  of  it,  but  you  have  had  enough  of  the 
stuff  left  to  make  Presidents  of  several  com- 
paratively small  men  since;  and  it  is  your 
chief  reliance  now  to  make  still  another. 

By  the  way,  Mr.  Speaker,  did  you  know  I 
am  a  military  hero?    Yes,  sir;  in  the  days  of 

20 


the  Black  Hawk  war  I  fought,  bled,  and  came 
away.  Speaking  of  General  Cass's  career 
reminds  me  of  my  own.  I  was  not  at  Still- 
man's  defeat,  but  I  was  about  as  near  it  as 
Cass  was  to  Hull's  surrender;  and,  like  him, 
I  saw  the  place  very  soon  afterward.  It  is 
quite  certain  I  did  not  break  my  sword,  for 
I  had  none  to  break;  but  I  bent  a  musket 
pretty  badly  on  one  occasion.  If  Cass  broke 
his  sword,  the  idea  is  he  broke  it  in  despera- 
tion ;  I  bent  the  musket  by  accident.  If  Gen- 
eral Cass  went  in  advance  of  me  in  picking 
huckleberries,  I  guess  I  surpassed  him  in 
charges  upon  the  wild  onions.  If  he  saw  any 
live,  fighting  Indians,  it  was  more  than  I  did; 
but  I  had  a  good  many  bloody  struggles  with 
the  mosquitoes,  and  although  I  never  fainted 
from  the  loss  of  blood,  I  can  truly  say  I  was 
often  very  hungry.  Mr.  Speaker,  if  I  should 
ever  conclude  to  doff  whatever  our  Democratic 
friends  may  suppose  there  is  of  black-cockade 
federalism  about  me,  and  therefore  they  shall 
take  me  up  as  their  candidate  for  the  presi- 
dency, I  protest  they  shall  not  make  fun  of 
me,  as  they  have  of  General  Cass,  by  attempt- 
ing to  write  me  into  a  military  hero. 

I  have  heard  some  things  from  New  York ; 
and  if  they  are  true,  one  might  well  say  of  your 
party  there,  as  a  drunken  fellow  once  said 
when  he  heard  the  reading  of  an  indictment 
for  hog-stealing.  The  clerk  read  on  till  he  got 
to  and  through  the  words  "did  steal,  take, 


and  carry  away  ten  boars,  ten  sows,  ten  shoats, 
and  ten  pigs,"  at  which  he  exclaimed,  "Well, 
by  golly,  that  is  the  most  equally  divided  gang 
of  hogs  I  ever  did  hear  of!"  If  there  is  any 
other  gang  of  hogs  more  equally  divided  than 
the  Democrats  of  New  York  are  about  this 
time,  I  have  not  heard  of  it.  —  Speech  in  Con- 
gress; July  27,  1848. 


E  mere  physical  of  Niagara  Falls  is  a 
-i-  very  small  part  of  that  world's  wonder. 
Its  power  to  excite  reflection  and  emotion  is 
its  great  charm.  ...  It  calls  up  the  indefinite 
past.  When  Columbus  first  sought  this  con- 
tinent —  when  Christ  suffered  on  the  cross  — 
when  Moses  led  Israel  through  the  Red  Sea 
—  nay,  even  when  Adam  first  came  from  the 
hand  of  his  Maker:  then,  as  now,  Niagara 
was  roaring  here.  The  eyes  of  that  species  of 
extinct  giants  whose  bones  fill  the  mounds  of 
America  have  gazed  on  Niagara,  as  ours  do 
now.  Contemporary  with  the  first  race  of 
men,  and  older  than  the  first  man,  Niagara 
is  strong  and  fresh  to-day  as  ten  thousand 
years  ago.  The  Mammoth  and  Mastodon, 
so  long  dead  that  fragments  of  their  monstrous 
bones  alone  testify  that  they  ever  lived,  have 
gazed  on  Niagara  —  in  that  long,  long  time 
never  still  for  a  single  moment  [never  dried], 
never  froze,  never  slept,  never  rested.  —  Notes 
for  a  Popular  Lecture  on  Niagara  Falls;  July, 
1850. 

22 


I  AM  not  an  accomplished  lawyer.  I  find 
quite  as  much  material  for  a  lecture  in 
those  points  wherein  I  have  failed,  as  in  those 
wherein  I  have  been  moderately  successful. 
The  leading  rule  for  the  lawyer,  as  for  the  man 
of  every  other  calling,  is  diligence.  Leave 
nothing  for  to-morrow  which  can  be  done  to- 
day. Never  let  your  correspondence  fall  be- 
hind. Whatever  piece  of  business  you  have 
in  hand,  before  stopping,  do  all  the  labor  per- 
taining to  it  which  can  then  be  done.  When 
you  bring  a  common-law  suit,  if  you  have  the 
facts  for  doing  so,  write  the  declaration  at 
once.  If  a  law  point  be  involved,  examine  the 
books,  and  note  the  authority  you  rely  on 
upon  the  declaration  itself,  where  you  are  sure 
to  find  it  when  wanted.  The  same  of  defenses 
and  pleas.  In  business  not  likely  to  be  liti- 
gated, —  ordinary  collection  cases,  foreclos- 
ures, partitions,  and  the  like,  —  make  all  ex- 
aminations of  titles,  and  note  them,  and  even 
draft  orders  and  decrees  in  advance.  This 
course  has  a  triple  advantage ;  it  avoids  omis- 
sions and  neglect,  saves  your  labor  when  once 
done,  performs  the  labor  out  of  court  when 
you  have  leisure,  rather  than  in  court  when 
you  have  not.  Extemporaneous  speaking 
should  be  practiced  and  cultivated.  It  is  the 
lawyer's  avenue  to  the  public.  However  able 
and  faithful  he  may  be  in  other  respects, 
people  are  slow  to  bring  him  business  if  he 
cannot  make  a  speech.  And  yet  there  is  not 
a  more  fatal  error  to  young  lawyers  than  rely- 

23 


ing  too  much  on  speech-making.  If  any  one, 
upon  his  rare  powers  of  speaking,  shall  claim 
an  exemption  from  the  drudgery  of  the  law, 
his  case  is  a  failure  in  advance. 

Discourage  litigation.  Persuade  your 
neighbors  to  compromise  whenever  you  can. 
Point  out  to  them  how  the  nominal  winner  is 
often  a  real  loser  —  in  fees,  expenses,  and 
waste  of  time.  As  a  peacemaker  the  lawyer 
has  a  superior  opportunity  of  being  a  good 
man.  There  will  still  be  business  enough. 

Never  stir  up  litigation.  A  worse  man 
can  scarcely  be  found  than  one  who  does 
this.  Who  can  be  more  nearly  a  fiend  than 
he  who  habitually  overhauls  the  register  of 
deeds  in  search  of  defects  in  titles,  whereon 
to  stir  up  strife,  and  put  money  in  his  pocket  ? 
A  moral  tone  ought  to  be  infused  into  the  pro- 
fession which  should  drive  such  men  out  of  it. 

The  matter  of  fees  is  important,  far  beyond 
the  mere  question  of  bread  and  butter  in- 
volved. Properly  attended  to,  fuller  justice 
is  done  to  both  lawyer  and  client.  An  exor- 
bitant fee  should  never  be  claimed.  As  a 
general  rule  never  take  your  whole  fee  in 
advance,  nor  any  more  than  a  small  retainer. 
When  fully  paid  beforehand,  you  are  more 
than  a  common  mortal  if  you  can  feel  the 
same  interest  in  the  case,  as  if  something  was 
still  in  prospect  for  you,  as  well  as  for  your 
client.  And  when  you  lack  interest  in  the 
case  the  job  will  very  likely  lack  skill  and  dili- 
gence in  the  performance.  Settle  the  amount 
24 


of  fee  and  take  a  note  in  advance.  Then  you 
will  feel  that  you  are  working  for  something, 
and  you  are  sure  to  do  your  work  faithfully 
and  well.  Never  sell  a  fee  note  —  at  least  not 
before  the  consideration  service  is  performed. 
It  leads  to  negligence  and  dishonesty  —  negli- 
gence by  losing  interest  in  the  case,  and  dis- 
honesty in  refusing  to  refund  when  you  have 
allowed  the  consideration  to  fail. 

There  is  a  vague  popular  belief  that  lawyers 
are  necessarily  dishonest.  I  say  vague,  be- 
cause when  we  consider  to  what  extent  con- 
fidence and  honors  are  reposed  in  and  con- 
ferred upon  lawyers  by  the  people,  it  appears 
improbable  that  their  impression  of  dishonesty 
is  very  distinct  and  vivid.  Yet  the  impression 
is  common,  almost  universal.  Let  no  young 
man  choosing  the  law  for  a  calling  for  a  mo- 
ment yield  to  the  popular  belief  —  resolve  to 
be  honest  at  all  events;  and  if  in  your  own 
judgment  you  cannot  be  an  honest  lawyer, 
resolve  to  be  honest  without  being  a  lawyer. 
Choose  some  other  occupation,  rather  than 
one  in  the  choosing  of  which  you  do,  in  ad- 
vance, consent  to  be  a  knave.  —  Notes  for 
Law  Lecture;  July,  1850. 


MR.  CLAY  ever  was  on  principle  and  in 
feeling  opposed  to  slavery.     The  very 
earliest,  and  one  of  the  latest,  public  efforts 
of  his  life,  separated  by  a  period  of  more  than 
fifty  years,  were  both  made  in  favor  of  gradual 

25 


emancipation.  He  did  not  perceive  that  on  a 
question  of  human  right  the  negroes  were  to 
be  excepted  from  the  human  race.  And  yet 
Mr.  Clay  was  the  owner  of  slaves.  Cast  into 
life  when  slavery  was  already  widely  spread 
and  deeply  seated,  he  did  not  perceive,  as  I 
think  no  wise  man  has  perceived,  how  it 
could  be  at  once  eradicated  without  produc- 
ing a  greater  evil  even  to  the  cause  of  human 
liberty  itself.  His  feeling  and  his  judgment, 
therefore,  ever  led  him  to  oppose  both  ex- 
tremes of  opinion  on  the  subject.  Those  who 
would  shiver  into  fragments  the  Union  of 
these  States,  tear  to  tatters  its  now  venerated 
Constitution,  and  even  burn  the  last  copy  of 
the  Bible,  rather  than  slavery  should  continue 
a  single  hour,  together  with  all  their  more 
halting  sympathizers,  have  received,  and  are 
receiving,  their  just  execration ;  and  the  name 
and  opinions  and  influence  of  Mr.  Clay  are 
fully  and,  as  I  trust,  effectually  and  endur- 
ingly  arrayed  against  them.  But  I  would  also, 
if  I  could,  array  his  name,  opinions,  and  in- 
fluence against  the  opposite  extreme  — 
against  a  few  but  an  increasing  number  of 
men  who,  for  the  sake  of  perpetuating  slavery, 
are  beginning  to  assail  and  to  ridicule  the 
white  man's  charter  of  freedom,  the  declara- 
tion that  "all  men  are  created  free  and 
equal."  —  Eulogy  of  Henry  Clay;  July  16, 
1852. 


'"pHE  legitimate  object  of  government  is  to 
-I  do  for  a  community  of  people  whatever 
they  need  to  have  done,  but  cannot  do  at  all, 
or  cannot  so  well  do,  for  themselves,  in  their 
separate  and  individual  capacities.  In  all 
that  the  people  can  individually  do  as  well  for 
themselves,  government  ought  not  to  interfere. 

Equality  in  society  alike  beats  inequality, 
whether  the  latter  be  of  the  British  aristo- 
cratic sort  or  of  the  domestic  slavery  sort. 
We  know  Southern  men  declare  that  their 
slaves  are  better  off  than  hired  laborers  among 
us.  How  little  they  know  whereof  they  speak ! 
There  is  no  permanent  class  of  hired  laborers 
amongst  us.  Twenty-five  years  ago  I  was  a 
hired  laborer.  The  hired  laborer  of  yesterday 
labors  on  his  own  account  to-day,  and  will 
hire  others  to  labor  for  him  to-morrow.  Ad- 
vancement —  improvement  in  condition  —  is 
the  order  of  things  in  a  society  of  equals.  As 
labor  is  the  common  burden  of  our  race,  so 
the  effort  of  some  to  shift  their  share  of  the 
burden  onto  the  shoulders  of  others  is  the 
great  durable  curse  of  the  race.  Originally  a 
curse  for  transgression  upon  the  whole  race, 
when,  as  by  slavery,  it  is  concentrated  on  a 
part  only,  it  becomes  the  double-refined  curse 
of  God  upon  his  creatures. 

Free  labor  has  the  inspiration  of  hope; 
pure  slavery  has  no  hope.  The  power  of  hope 
upon  human  exertion  and  happiness  is  won- 
derful. The  slave-master  himself  has  a  con- 
ception of  it,  and  hence  the  system  of  tasks 
27 


among  slaves.  The  slave  whom  you  cannot 
drive  with  the  lash  to  break  seventy-five 
pounds  of  hemp  in  a  day,  if  you  will  task  him 
to  break  a  hundred,  and  promise  him  pay  for 
all  he  does  over,  he  will  break  you  a  hundred 
and  fifty.  You  have  substituted  hope  for  the 
rod.  And  yet  perhaps  it  does  not  occur  to  you 
that  to  the  extent  of  your  gain  in  the  case,  you 
have  given  up  the  slave  system  and  adopted 
the  free  system  of  labor. 

If  A  can  prove,  however  conclusively,  that 
he  may  of  right  enslave  B,  why  may  not  B 
snatch  the  same  argument  and  prove  equally 
that  he  may  enslave  A  ?  You  say  A  is  white 
and  B  is  black.  It  is  color,  then;  the  lighter 
having  the  right  to  enslave  the  darker?  Take 
care.  By  this  rule  you  are  to  be  slave  to  the 
first  man  you  meet  with  a  fairer  skin  than 
your  own.  You  do  not  mean  color  exactly? 
You  mean  the  whites  are  intellectually  the 
superiors  of  the  blacks,  and  therefore  have 
the  right  to  enslave  them  ?  Take  care  again. 
By  this  rule  you  are  to  be  slave  to  the  first  man 
you  meet  with  an  intellect  superior  to  your 
own.  But,  say  you,  it  is  a  question  of  interest, 
and  if  you  make  it  your  interest  you  have  the 
right  to  enslave  another.  Very  well.  And 
if  he  can  make  it  his  interest  he  has  the  right 
to  enslave  you. 

The  ant  who  has  toiled  and  dragged  a 
crumb  to  his  nest  will  furiously  defend  the 
28 


fruit  of  his  labor  against  whatever  robber 
assails  him.  So  plain  that  the  most  dumb  and 
stupid  slave  that  ever  toiled  for  a  master  does 
constantly  know  that  he  is  wronged.  So  plain 
that  no  one,  high  or  low,  ever  does  mistake  it, 
except  in  a  plainly  selfish  way;  for  although 
volume  upon  volume  is  written  to  prove  slav- 
ery a  very  good  thing,  we  never  hear  of  the 
man  who  wishes  to  take  the  good  of  it  by 
being  a  slave  himself. 

Most  governments  have  been  based,  practi- 
cally, on  the  denial  of  the  equal  rights  of  men, 
as  I  have,  in  part,  stated  them;  ours  began  by 
affirming  those  rights.  They  said,  some  men 
are  too  ignorant  and  vicious  to  share  in  gov- 
ernment. Possibly  so,  said  we;  and,  by  your 
system,  you  would  always  keep  them  ignorant 
and  vicious.  We  proposed  to  give  all  a 
chance;  and  we  expected  the  weak  to  grow 
stronger,  the  ignorant  wiser,  and  all  better 
and  happier  together. 

We  made  the  experiment,  and  the  fruit  is 
before  us.  Look  at  it,  think  of  it.  Look  at  it 
in  its  aggregate  grandeur,  of  extent  of  country, 
and  numbers  of  population  —  of  ship,  and 
steamboat,  and  railroad.  —  Notes  on  Govern- 
ment; July,  1854. 


I  THINK,  and  shall  try  to  show,  that  the 
repeal  of    the  Missouri   Compromise  is 
wrong  —  wrong  in    its  direct  effect,   letting 
slavery  into  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  and  wrong 
29 


in  its  prospective  principle,  allowing  it  to 
spread  to  every  other  part  of  the  wide  world 
where  men  can  be  found  inclined  to  take  it. 

This  declared  indifference,  but,  as  I  must 
think,  covert  real  zeal,  for  the  spread  of 
slavery,  I  cannot  but  hate.  I  hate  it  because 
of  the  monstrous  injustice  of  slavery  itself. 
I  hate  it  because  it  deprives  our  republican 
example  of  its  just  influence  in  the  world; 
enables  the  enemies  of  free  institutions  with 
plausibility  to  taunt  us  as  hypocrites;  causes 
the  real  friends  of  freedom  to  doubt  our  sin- 
cerity; and  especially  because  it  forces  so 
many  good  men  among  ourselves  into  an 
open  war  with  the  very  fundamental  prin- 
ciples of  civil  liberty,  criticising  the  Dec- 
laration of  Independence,  and  insisting 
that  there  is  no  right  principle  of  action 
but  self-interest. 

When  Southern  people  tell  us  they  are  no 
more  responsible  for  the  origin  of  slavery  than 
we  are,  I  acknowledge  the  fact.  When  it  is 
said  that  the  institution  exists,  and  that  it  is 
very  difficult  to  get  rid  of  it  in  any  satisfactory 
way,  I  can  understand  and  appreciate  the 
saying.  I  surely  will  not  blame  them  for  not 
doing  what  I  should  not  know  how  to  do  my- 
self. If  all  earthly  power  were  given  me,  I 
should  not  know  what  to  do  as  to  the  existing 
institution.  My  first  impulse  would  be  to  free 
all  the  slaves,  and  send  them  to  Liberia,  to 
their  own  native  land.  But  a  moment's  re- 
30 


flection  would  convince  me  that  whatever  of 
high  hope  (as  I  think  there  is)  there  may  be 
in  this  in  the  long  run,  its  sudden  execution 
is  impossible.  If  they  were  all  landed  there 
in  a  day,  they  would  all  perish  in  the  next  ten 
days;  and  there  are  not  surplus  shipping  and 
surplus  money  enough  to  carry  them  there 
in  many  times  ten  days.  What  then?  Free 
them  all,  and  keep  them  among  us  as  under- 
lings? Is  it  quite  certain  that  this  betters 
their  condition?  I  think  I  would  not  hold 
one  in  slavery  at  any  rate,  yet  the  point  is  not 
clear  enough  for  me  to  denounce  people  upon. 
What  next?  Free  them,  and  make  them 
politically  and  socially  our  equals.  My  own 
feelings  will  not  admit  of  this,  and  if  mine 
would,  we  well  know  that  those  of  the  great 
mass  of  whites  will  not.  Whether  this  feel- 
ing accords  with  justice  and  sound  judgment 
is  not  the  sole  question,  if  indeed  it  is  any  part 
of  it.  A  universal  feeling,  whether  well  or  ill 
founded,  cannot  be  safely  disregarded.  We 
cannot  then  make  them  equals.  It  does  seem 
to  me  that  systems  of  gradual  emancipation 
might  be  adopted,  but  for  their  tardiness  in 
this  I  will  not  undertake  to  judge  our  brethren 
of  the  South. 

When  they  remind  us  of  their  constitu- 
tional rights,  I  acknowledge  them  —  not 
grudgingly,  but  fully  and  fairly;  and  I  would 
give  them  any  legislation  for  the  reclaiming 
of  their  fugitives  which  should  not  in  its 
stringency  be  more  likely  to  carry  a  free  man 

31 


into  slavery  than  our  ordinary  criminal  laws 
are  to  hang  an  innocent  one. 

But  all  this,  to  my  judgment,  furnishes  no 
more  excuse  for  permitting  slavery  to  go  into 
our  own  free  territory  than  it  would  for  reviv- 
ing the  African  slave-trade  by  law.  The  law 
which  forbids  the  bringing  of  slaves  from 
Africa,  and  that  which  has  so  long  forbidden 
the  taking  of  them  into  Nebraska,  can  hardly 
be  distinguished  on  any  moral  principle,  and 
the  repeal  of  the  former  could  find  quite  as 
plausible  excuses  as  that  of  the  latter. 

Equal  justice  to  the  South,  it  is  said,  re- 
quires us  to  consent  to  the  extension  of  slavery 
to  new  countries.  That  is  to  say,  inasmuch 
as  you  do  not  object  to  my  taking  my  hog  to 
Nebraska,  therefore  I  must  not  object  to  you 
taking  your  slave.  Now,  I  admit  that  this  is 
perfectly  logical,  if  there  is  no  difference  be- 
tween hogs  and  negroes.  But  while  you  thus 
require  me  to  deny  the  humanity  of  the  negro, 
I  wish  to  ask  whether  you  of  the  South,  your- 
selves, have  ever  been  willing  to  do  as  much  ? 
It  is  kindly  provided  that  of  all  those  who 
come  into  the  world  only  a  small  percentage 
are  natural  tyrants.  That  percentage  is  no 
larger  in  the  slave  States  than  in  the  free. 
The  great  majority  South,  as  well  as  North, 
have  human  sympathies,  of  which  they  can 
no  more  divest  themselves  than  they  can  of 
their  sensibility  to  physical  pain.  These 
sympathies  in  the  bosoms  of  the  Southern 
32 


people  manifest,  in  many  ways,  their  sense 
of  the  wrong  of  slavery,  and  their  conscious- 
ness that,  after  all,  there  is  humanity  in  the 
negro.  If  they  deny  this,  let  me  address  them 
a  few  plain  questions.  In  1820  you  joined 
the  North,  almost  unanimously,  in  declaring 
the  African  slave-trade  piracy,  and  in  annex- 
ing to  it  the  punishment  of  death.  Why  did 
you  do  this?  If  you  did  not  feel  that  it  was 
wrong,  why  did  you  join  in  providing  that 
men  should  be  hung  for  it  ?  The  practice  was 
no  more  than  bringing  wild  negroes  from 
Africa  to  such  as  would  buy  them.  But  you 
never  thought  of  hanging  men  for  catching 
and  selling  wild  horses,  wild  buffaloes,  or 
wild  bears. 

Again,  you  have  among  you  a  sneaking 
individual  of  the  class  of  native  tyrants  known 
as  the  "Slave-Dealer."  He  watches  your 
necessities,  and  crawls  up  to  buy  your  slave, 
at  a  speculating  price.  If  you  cannot  help  it, 
you  sell  to  him;  but  if  you  can  help  it,  you 
drive  him  from  your  door.  You  despise  him 
utterly.  You  do  not"  recognize  him  as  a  friend, 
or  even  as  an  honest  man.  Your  children 
must  not  play  with  his;  they  may  rollick 
freely  with  the  little  negroes,  but  not  with  the 
slave-dealer's  children.  If  you  are  obliged  to 
deal  with  him,  you  try  to  get  through  the  job 
without  so  much  as  touching  him.  It  is  com- 
mon with  you  to  join  hands  with  the  men  you 
meet,  but  with  the  slave-dealer  you  avoid  .  *e 
ceremony  —  instinctively  shrinking  from  the 

3  33 


snaky  contact.  If  he  grows  rich  and  retires 
from  business,  you  still  remember  him,  and 
still  keep  up  the  ban  of  non-intercourse  upon 
him  and  his  family.  Now  why  is  this  ?  You 
do  not  so  treat  the  man  who  deals  in  corn, 
cotton,  or  tobacco. 

The  doctrine  of  self-government  is  right,  — 
—  absolutely  and  eternally  right,  —  but  it 
has  no  just  application  as  here  attempted. 
Or  perhaps  I  should  rather  say  that  whether 
it  has  such  application  depends  upon  whether 
a  negro  is  not  or  is  a  man.  If  he  is  not  a  man, 
in  that  case  he  who  is  a  man  may  as  a  matter 
of  self-government  do  just  what  he  pleases 
with  him.  But  if  the  negro  is  a  man,  is  it  not 
to  that  extent  a  total  destruction  of  self- 
government  to  say  that  he  too  shall  not  gov- 
ern himself?  When  the  white  man  governs 
himself,  that  is  self-government;  but  when 
he  governs  himself  and  also  governs  another 
man,  that  is  more  than  self-government  — 
that  is  despotism.  If  the  negro  is  a  man,  why 
then  my  ancient  faith  te'aches  me  that  "all 
men  are  created  equal,"  and  that  there  can 
be  no  moral  right  in  connection  with  one 
man's  making  a  slave  of  another. 

Judge  Douglas  frequently,  with  bitter  irony 
and  sarcasm,  paraphrases  our  argument  by 
saying:  "The  white  people  of  Nebraska  are 
good  enough  to  govern  themselves,  but  they 
are  not  good  enough  to  govern  a  few  miserable 
negroes!" 

34 


Well !  I  doubt  not  that  the  people  of  Ne- 
braska are  and  will  continue  to  be  as  good  as 
the  average  of  people  elsewhere.  I  do  not  say 
the  contrary.  What  I  do  say  is  that  no  man 
is  good  enough  to  govern  another  man  without 
that  other's  consent.  I  say  this  is  the  lead- 
ing principle,  the  sheet-anchor  of  American 
republicanism. 

Still  further:  there  are  constitutional  re- 
lations between  the  slave  and  free  States 
which  are  degrading  to  the  latter.  We  are 
under  legal  obligations  to  catch  and  return 
their  runaway  slaves  to  them:  a  sort  of  dirty, 
disagreeable  job,  which,  I  believe,  as  a  gen- 
eral rule,  the  slaveholders  will  not  perform 
for  one  another.  Then  again,  in  the  control 
of  the  government  —  the  management  of  the 
partnership  affairs  —  they  have  greatly  the 
advantage  of  us.  By  the  Constitution  each 
State  has  two  senators,  each  has  a  number  of 
representatives  in  proportion  to  the  number  of 
its  people,  and  each  has  a  number  of  presi- 
dential electors  equal  to  the  whole  number 
of  its  senators  and  representatives  together. 
But  in  ascertaining  the  number  of  the  people 
for  this  purpose,  five  slaves  are  counted  as 
being  equal  to  three  whites.  The  slaves  do 
not  vote;  they  are  only  counted  and  so  used 
as  to  swell  the  influence  of  the  white  people's 
votes.  The  practical  effect  of  this  is  more  aptly 
shown  by  a  comparison  of  the  States  of  South 
Carolina  and  Maine.  South  Carolina  has  six 
35 


representatives,  and  so  has  Maine;  South 
Carolina  has  eight  presidential  electors,  and 
so  has  Maine.  This  is  precise  equality  so  far ; 
and  of  course  they  are  equal  in  senators,  each 
having  two.  Thus  in  the  control  of  the  gov- 
ernment the  two  States  are  equals  precisely. 
But  how  are  they  in  the  number  of  their  white 
people?  Maine  has  581,813,  while  South 
Carolina  has  274,567;  Maine  has  twice  as 
many  as  South  Carolina,  and  32,679  over. 
Thus,  each  white  man  in  South  Carolina  is 
more  than  the  double  of  any  man  in  Maine. 
This  is  all  because  South  Carolina,  besides 
her  free  people,  has  384,984  slaves.  .  .  . 
This  principle,  in  the  aggregate,  gives  the 
slave  States  in  the  present  Congress  twenty 
additional  representatives,  being  seven  more 
than  the  whole  majority  by  which  they  passed 
the  Nebraska  bill. 

Now  all  this  is  manifestly  unfair;  yet  I  do 
not  mention  it  to  complain  of  it,  in  so  far  as 
it  is  already  settled.  It  is  in  the  Constitution, 
and  I  do  not  for  that  cause  or  any  other  cause, 
propose  to  destroy,  or  alter,  or  disregard  the 
Constitution.  I  stand  to  it,  fairly,  fully,  and 
firmly. 

But  when  I  am  told  I  must  leave  it  alto- 
gether to  other  people  to  say  whether  new 
partners  are  to  be  bred  up  and  brought  into 
the  firm,  on  the  same  degrading  terms  against 
me,  I  respectfully  demur.  I  insist  that 
whether  I  shall  be  a  whole  man,  or  only  the 
half  of  one,  in  comparison  with  others,  is  a 
36 


question  in  which  I  am  somewhat  concerned, 
and  one  which  no  other  man  can  have  a  sacred 
right  of  deciding  for  me.  If  I  am  wrong  in 
this  —  if  it  really  be  a  sacred  right  of  self- 
government  in  the  man  who  shall  go  to  Ne- 
braska to  decide  whether  he  will  be  the  equal 
of  me  or  the  double  of  me,  then,  after  he  shall 
have  exercised  that  right,  and  thereby  shall 
have  reduced  me  to  a  still  smaller  fraction  of 
a  man  than  I  already  am,  I  should  like  for 
some  gentleman,  deeply  skilled  in  the  myste- 
ries of  sacred  rights,  to  provide  himself  with  a 
microscope,  and  peep  about,  and  find  out, 
if  he  can,  what  has  become  of  my  sacred 
rights.  They  will  surely  be  too  small  for 
detection  with  the  naked  eye. 

But  Nebraska  is  urged  as  a  great  Union- 
saving  measure.  Well,  I  too  go  for  saving  the 
Union.  Much  as  I  hate  slavery,  I  would  con- 
sent to  the  extension  of  it  rather  than  see  the 
Union  dissolved,  just  as  I  would  consent  to 
any  great  evil  to  avoid  a  greater  one.  But 
when  I  go  to  Union-saving,  I  must  believe, 
at  least,  that  the  means  I  employ  have  some 
adaptation  to  the  end.  To  my  mind,  Nebraska 
has  no  such  adaptation. 

It  hath  no  relish  of  salvation  in  it. 
It  is  an  aggravation,  rather,  of  the  only  one 
thing  which  ever  endangers  the  Union.    When 
it  came  upon  us,  all  was  peace  and  quiet.    The 
nation  was  looking  to  the  forming  of  new 

37 


bonds  of  union,  and  a  long  course  of  peace  and 
prosperity  seemed  to  lie  before  us.  In  the 
whole  range  of  possibility,  there  scarcely  ap- 
pears to  me  to  have  been  anything  out  of 
which  the  slavery  agitation  could  have  been 
revived,  except  the  very  project  of  repealing 
the  Missouri  Compromise.  Every  inch  of 
territory  we  owned  already  had  a  definite 
settlement  of  the  slavery  question,  by  which 
all  parties  were  pledged  to  abide.  .  .  . 

In  this  state  of  affairs  the  Genius  of  Dis- 
cord himself  could  scarcely  have  invented  a 
way  of  again  setting  us  by  the  ears  but  by 
turning  back  and  destroying  the  peace  meas- 
ures of  the  past.  The  counsels  of  that  Genius 
seem  to  have  prevailed.  The  Missouri  Com- 
promise was  repealed;  and  here  we  are  in 
the  midst  of  a  new  slavery  agitation,  such,  I 
think,  as  we  have  never  seen  before.  Who 
is  responsible  for  this  ?  Is  it  those  who  resist 
the  measure,  or  those  who  causelessly  brought 
it  forward  and  pressed  it  through,  having 
reason  to  know,  and  in  fact  knowing,  it  must 
and  would  be  so  resisted?  It  could  not  but 
be  expected  by  its  author  that  it  would  be 
looked  upon  as  a  measure  for  the  extension 
of  slavery,  aggravated  by  a  gross  breach  of 
faith. 

Argue  as  you  will  and  long  as  you  will,  this 
is  the  naked  front  and  aspect  of  the  measure. 
And  in  this  aspect  it  could  not  but  produce 
agitation.  Slavery  is  founded  in  the  selfish- 
ness of  man's  nature  —  opposition  to  it  in 

33 


his  love  of  justice.  These  principles  are  in 
eternal  antagonism,  and  when  brought  into 
collision  so  fiercely  as  slavery  extension  brings 
them,  shocks  and  throes  and  convulsions  must 
ceaselessly  follow.  Repeal  the  Missouri  Com- 
promise, repeal  all  compromises,  repeal  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  repeal  all  past 
history,  you  still  cannot  repeal  human  nature. 
It  still  will  be  the  abundance  of  man's  heart 
that  slavery  extension  is  wrong,  and  out  of 
the  abundance  of  his  heart  his  mouth  will  con- 
tinue to  speak. 

Fellow-countrymen,  Americans,  South  as 
well  as  North,  shall  we  make  no  effort  to  ar- 
rest this?  Already  the  liberal  party  through- 
out the  world  express  the  apprehension  "that 
the  one  retrograde  institution  in  America  is 
undermining  the  principles  of  progress,  and 
fatally  violating  the  noblest  political  system 
the  world  ever  saw."  This  is  not  the  taunt 
of  enemies,  but  the  warning  of  friends.  Is  it 
quite  safe  to  disregard  it  —  to  despise  it  ?  Is 
there  no  danger  to  liberty  itself  in  discarding 
the  earliest  practice  and  first  precept  of  our 
ancient  faith  ?  In  our  greedy  chase  to  make 
profit  of  the  negro,  let  us  beware  lest  we  "can- 
cel and  tear  in  pieces"  even  the  white  man's 
charter  of  freedom. 

Our  republican  robe  is  soiled  and  trailed 

in  the  dust.    Let  us  repurify  it.    Let  us  turn 

and  wash  it  white  in  the  spirit,  if  not  the  blood, 

of  the  Revolution.    Let  us  turn  slavery  from 

39 


its  claims  of  "moral  right"  back  upon  its  ex- 
isting legal  rights  and  its  arguments  of  "neces- 
sity." Let  us  return  it  to  the  position  our 
fathers  gave  it,  and  there  let  it  rest  in  peace. 
Let  us  readopt  the  Declaration  of  Independ- 
ence, and  with  it  the  practices  and  policy 
which  harmonize  with  it.  Let  North  and 
South  —  let  all  Americans  —  let  all  lovers  of 
liberty  everywhere  join  in  the  great  and  good 
work.  If  we  do  this,  we  shall  not  only  have 
saved  the  Union,  but  we  shall  have  so  saved 
it  as  to  make  and  to  keep  it  forever  worthy  of 
the  saving.  We  shall  have  so  saved  it  that 
the  succeeding  millions  of  free  happy  people, 
the  world  over,  shall  rise  up  and  call  us  blessed 
to  the  latest  generations.  —  On  the  Repeal  of 
the  Missouri  Compromise  Speech  at  Peoria, 
III.;  October  16,  1854. 


SINCE  then  [the  Missouri  Compromise  of 
1820]  we  have  had  thirty-six  years  of  ex- 
perience; and  this  experience  has  demon- 
strated, I  think,  that  there  is  no  peaceful 
extinction  of  slavery  in  prospect  for  us.  The 
signal  failure  of  Henry  Clay  and  other  good 
and  great  men,  in  1849,  to  en°ect  anything  in 
favor  of  gradual  emancipation  in  Kentucky, 
together  with  a  thousand  other  signs,  extin- 
guished that  hope  utterly.  On  the  question  of 
liberty  as  a  principle,  we  are  not  what  we  have 
been.  When  we  were  the  political  slaves  of 
King  George,  and  wanted  to  be  free,  we  called 
40 


the  maxim  that  "all  men  are  created  equal" 
a  self-evident  truth,  but  now  when  we  have 
grown  fat,  and  have  lost  all  dread  of  being 
slaves  ourselves,  we  have  become  so  greedy 
to  be  masters  that  we  call  the  same  maxim 
"a  self-evident  lie."  The  Fourth  of  July  has 
not  quite  dwindled  away;  it  is  still  a  great 
day  —  for  burning  fire-crackers ! ! ! 

That  spirit  which  desired  the  peaceful  ex- 
tinction of  slavery  has  itself  become  extinct 
with  the  occasion  and  the  men  of  the  Revolu- 
tion. Under  the  impulse  of  that  occasion, 
nearly  half  the  States  adopted  systems  of 
emancipation  at  once,  and  it  is  a  significant 
fact  that  not  a  single  State  has  done  the  like 
since.  So  far  as  peaceful  voluntary  emancipa- 
tion is  concerned,  the  condition  of  the  negro 
slave  in  America,  scarcely  less  terrible  to  the 
contemplation  of  a  free  mind,  is  now  as  fixed 
and  hopeless  of  change  for  the  better,  as  that 
of  the  lost  souls  of  the  finally  impenitent. 
The  Autocrat  of  all  the  Russias  will  resign 
his  crown  and  proclaim  his  subjects  free  re- 
publicans sooner  than  will  our  American 
masters  voluntarily  give  up  their  slaves. 

Our  political  problem  now  is,  "Can  we  as  a 
nation  continue  together  permanently  —  for- 
ever —  half  slave  and  half  free  ?  "  The  prob- 
lem is  too  mighty  for  me  —  may  God,  in  his 
mercy,  superintend  the  solution.  —  Letter  to 
George  Robertson;  August  15,  1855. 


I  ACKNOWLEDGE  your  rights  and  my 
obligations  under  the  Constitution  in  re- 
gard to  your  slaves.  I  confess  I  hate  to  see 
the  poor  creatures  hunted  down  and  caught 
and  carried  back  to  their  stripes  and  unre- 
quited toil ;  but  I  bite  my  lips  and  keep  quiet. 
In  1841  you  and  I  had  together  a  tedious  low- 
water  trip  on  a  steamboat  from  Louisville  to 
St.  Louis.  You  may  remember,  as  I  well  do, 
that  from  Louisville  to  the  mouth  of  the  Ohio 
there  were  on  board  ten  or  a  dozen  slaves 
shackled  together  with  irons.  That  sight 
was  a  continued  torment  to  me  and  I  see 
something  like  it  every  time  I  touch  the  Ohio 
or  any  other  slave  border.  It  is  not  fair  for 
you  to  assume  that  I  have  no  interest  in  a 
thing  which  has,  and  continually  exercises, 
the  power  of  making  me  miserable.  You 
ought  rather  to  appreciate  how  much  the 
great  body  of  the  Northern  people  do  crucify 
their  feelings,  in  order  to  maintain  their  loy- 
alty to  the  Constitution  and  the  Union.  I  do 
oppose  the  extension  of  slavery  because  my 
judgment  and  feeling  so  prompt  me,  and  I 
am  under  no  obligations  to  the  contrary.  If 
for  this  you  and  I  must  differ,  differ  we 
must.  .  .  . 

You  inquire  where  I  now  stand.  That  is  a 
disputed  point.  I  think  I  am  a  Whig;  but 
others  say  there  are  no  Whigs,  and  that  I  am 
an  Abolitionist.  When  I  was  at  Washington, 
I  voted  for  the  Wilmot  proviso  as  good  as 
forty  times;  and  I  never  heard  of  any  one 
42 


attempting  to  unwhig  me  for  that.  I  now  do 
no  more  than  oppose  the  extension  of  slavery. 
I  am  not  a  Know-nothing;  that  is  certain. 
How  could  I  be?  How  can  any  one  who 
abhors  the  oppression  of  negroes  be  in  favor 
of  degrading  classes  of  white  people?  Our 
progress  in  degeneracy  appears  to  me  to  be 
pretty  rapid.  As  a  nation  we  began  by  declar- 
ing that  "all  men  are  created  equal."  We 
now  practically  read  it  "all  men  are  created 
equal,  except  negroes."  When  the  Know- 
nothings  get  control,  it  will  read  "all  men  are 
created  equal,  except  negroes  and  foreigners 
and  Catholics."  When  it  comes  to  this,  I 
shall  prefer  emigrating  to  some  country  where 
they  make  no  pretense  of  loving  liberty,  —  to 
Russia,  for  instance,  where  despotism  can 
be  taken  pure,  and  without  the  base  alloy 
of  hypocrisy.  —  Letter  to  Joshua  F.  Speed; 
August  24,  1855. 

THE  conclusion  of  all  is,  that  we  must 
restore  the  Missouri  Compromise.  We 
must  highly  resolve  that  Kansas  shall  be  free! 
We  must  reinstate  the  birthday  promise  of 
the  Republic ;  we  must  reaffirm  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence;  we  must  make  good 
in  essence  as  well  as  in  form  Madison's 
avowal  that  "the  word  slave  ought  not  to 
appear  in  the  Constitution";  and  we  must 
even  go  further,  and  decree  that  only  local 
law,  and  not  that  time-honored  instrument, 
shall  shelter  a  slave-holder.  We  must  make 

43 


this  a  land  of  liberty  in  fact,  as  it  is  in  name. 
But  in  seeking  to  attain  these  results  —  so 
indispensable  if  the  liberty  which  is  our  pride 
and  boast  shall  endure  —  we  will  be  loyal  to 
the  Constitution  and  to  the  "flag  of  our 
Union,"  and  no  matter  what  our  grievance  — 
even  though  Kansas  shall  come  in  as  a  slave 
State  —  and  no  matter  what  theirs  —  even 
if  we  shall  restore  the  Compromise  —  WE 
WILL  SAY  TO  THE  SOUTHERN  DISUNIONISTS, 
WE  WON'T  GO  OUT  OF  THE  UNION,  AND  YOU 
SHAN'T!  !  I  — Speech  before  the  First  Re- 
publican Convention,  Bloomington,  Illinois, 
May  29,  1856,  as  reported  by  Henry  C. 
Whitney. 

YOU  further  charge  us  with  being  dis- 
unionists.  If  you  mean  that  it  is  our 
aim  to  dissolve  the  Union,  I  for  myself  an- 
swer that  it  is  untrue;  for  those  who  act  with 
me  I  answer  that  it  is  untrue.  Have  you 
heard  us  assert  that  as  our  aim?  Do  you 
really  believe  that  such  is  our  aim?  Do 
you  find  it  in  our  platform,  our  speeches,  our 
conventions,  or  anywhere  ?  If  not,  withdraw 
the  charge. 

But  you  may  say  that  though  it  is  not  our 
aim,  it  will  be  the  result  if  we  succeed,  and 
that  we  are  therefore  disunionists  in  fact.  .  .  . 
The  only  charge  that  could  be  made  [against 
us]  is  that  the  restoration  of  the  restriction  of 
1820,  making  the  United  States  territory  free 
territory,  would  dissolve  the  Union.  Gentle- 

44 


men,  it  will  require  a  decided  majority  to  pass 
such  an  act.  We,  the  majority,  being  able 
constitutionally  to  do  all  that  we  purpose, 
would  have  no  desire  to  dissolve  the  Union. 
Do  you  say  that  such  restriction  of  slavery 
would  be  unconstitutional,  and  that  some  of 
the  States  would  not  submit  to  its  enforce- 
ment? I  grant  you  that  an  unconstitutional 
act  is  not  a  law;  but  I  do  not  ask  and  will 
not  take  your  construction  of  the  Constitution. 
The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  is 
the  tribunal  to  decide  such  a  question,  and 
we  will  submit  to  its  decisions;  and  if  you  do 
also,  there  will  be  an  end  of  the  matter.  Will 
you  ?  If  not,  who  are  the  disimionists  —  you 
or  we?  We,  the  majority,  would  not  strive 
to  dissolve  the  Union;  and  if  any  attempt  is 
made,  it  must  be  by  you,  who  so  loudly  stig- 
matize us  as  disunionists.  But  the  Union,  in 
any  event,  will  not  be  dissolved.  We  don't 
want  to  dissolve  it,  and  if  you  attempt  it  we 
won't  let  you.  With  the  purse  and  sword,  the 
army  and  navy  and  treasury,  in  our  hands 
and  at  our  command,  you  could  not  do  it. 
This  government  would  be  very  weak  indeed 
if  a  majority  with  a  disciplined  army  and  navy 
and  a  well-filled  treasury  could  not  preserve 
itself  when  attacked  by  an  unarmed,  undis- 
ciplined, unorganized  minority.  All  this  talk 
about  the  dissolution  of  the  Union  is  humbug, 
nothing  but  folly.  We  do  not  want  to  dis- 
solve the  Union;  you  shall  not.  — Speech  at 
Galena,  Illinois;  August,  1856. 

45 


RECURRING  to  the  question,  "Shall 
slavery  be  allowed  to  extend  into  United 
States  territory  now  legally  free?"  This  is  a 
sectional  question  —  that  is  to  say,  it  is  a 
question  in  its  nature  calculated  to  divide  the 
American  people  geographically.  Who  is  to 
blame  for  that?  Who  can  help  it?  Either 
side  can  help  it ;  but  how  ?  Simply  by  yield- 
ing to  the  other  side;  there  is  no  other  way; 
in  the  whole  range  of  possibility  there  is  no 
other  way.  Then,  which  side  shall  yield  ?  To 
this,  again,  there  can  be  but  one  answer,  — 
the  side  which  is  in  the  wrong.  True,  we 
differ  as  to  which  side  is  wrong,  and  we  boldly 
say,  let  all  who  really  think  slavery  ought  to 
be  spread  into  free  territory,  openly  go  over 
against  us;  there  is  where  they  rightfully 
belong.  But  why  should  any  go  who  really 
think  slavery  ought  not  to  spread?  Do  they 
really  think  the  right  ought  to  yield  to  the 
wrong  ?  Are  they  afraid  to  stand  by  the  right  ? 
Do  they  fear  that  the  Constitution  is  too  weak 
to  sustain  them  in  the  right  ?  Do  they  really 
think  that  by  right  surrendering  to  wrong  the 
hopes  of  our  Constitution,  our  Union,  and  our 
liberties  can  possibly  be  bettered  ?  —  Speech 
in  Fremont  Campaign;  October,  1856. 

OUR  government  rests  in  public  opinion. 
Whoever  can  change  public  opinion  can 
change   the  government   practically  just  so 
much.    Public  opinion,  on  any  subject,  always 
has  a  "central  idea,"  from  which  all  its  minor 
46 


thoughts  radiate.  That  "central  idea"  in 
our  political  public  opinion  at  the  beginning 
was,  and  until  recently  has  continued  to  be, 
"the  equality  of  men."  And  although  it  has 
always  submitted  patiently  to  whatever  of 
inequality  there  seemed  to  be  as  matter  of 
actual  necessity,  its  constant  working  has 
been  a  steady  progress  toward  the  practical 
equality  of  all  men.  The  late  presidential 
election  was  a  struggle  by  one  party  to  discard 
that  central  idea  and  to  substitute  for  it  the 
opposite  idea  that  slavery  is  right  in  the  ab- 
stract, the  workings  of  which  as  a  central  idea 
may  be  the  perpetuity  of  human  slavery  and 
its  extension  to  all  countries  and  colors.  Less 
than  a  year  ago  the  Richmond  Enquirer,  an 
avowed  advocate  of  slavery,  regardless  of 
color,  in  order  to  favor  his  views,  invented  the 
phrase  "State  equality,"  and  now  the  Presi- 
dent, in  his  message,  adopts  the  Enquirer's 
catch-phrase,  telling  us  the  people  "have 
asserted  the  constitutional  equality  of  each 
and  all  of  the  States  of  the  Union  as  States." 
The  President  flatters  himself  that  the  new 
central  idea  is  completely  inaugurated;  and 
so  indeed  it  is,  so  far  as  the  mere  fact  of  a 
presidential  election  can  inaugurate  it.  To 
us  it  is  left  to  know  that  the  majority  of  the 
people  have  not  yet  declared  for  it,  and  to 
hope  that  they  never  will. 

Let  us  reinaugurate  the  good  old  "central 
idea"  of  the  republic.    We  can  do  it.    The 
47 


human  heart  is  with  us;  God  is  with  us.  We 
shall  again  be  able  not  to  declare  that  "all 
States  as  States  are  equal,"  nor  yet  that  "all 
citizens  as  citizens  are  equal,"  but  to  renew 
the  broader,  better  declaration,  including 
both  these  and  much  more,  that  "all  men  are 
created  equal."  —  Speech  at  Republican  Ban- 
quet in  Chicago;  December  10,  1856. 


I  PROTEST  against  the  counterfeit  logic 
which  concludes  that,  because  I  do  not 
want  a  black  woman  for  a  slave  I  must  neces- 
sarily want  her  for  a  wife.  I  need  not  have 
her  for  either.  I  can  just  leave  her  alone.  In 
some  respects  she  certainly  is  not  my  equal; 
but  in  her  natural  right  to  eat  the  bread  she 
earns  with  her  own  hands  without  asking  leave 
of  any  one  else,  she  is  my  equal,  and  the  equal 
of  all  others. 

I  think  the  authors  of  that  notable  instru- 
ment [the  Declaration  of  Independence]  in- 
tended to  include  all  men,  but  they  did  not 
intend  to  declare  all  men  equal  in  all  respects. 
They  did  not  mean  to  say  all  were  equal  in 
color,  size,  intellect,  moral  developments,  or 
social  capacity.  They  defined  with  tolerable 
distinctness  in  what  respects  they  did  con- 
sider all  men  created  equal  —  equal  with 
"certain  inalienable  rights,  among  which  are 
life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness." 
This  they  said,  and  this  they  meant.  They 
48 


did  not  mean  to  assert  the  obvious  untruth 
that  all  were  then  actually  enjoying  that 
equality,  nor  yet  that  they  were  about  to  con- 
fer it  immediately  upon  them.  In  fact,  they 
had  no  power  to  confer  such  a  boon.  They 
meant  simply  to  declare  the  right,  so  that  en- 
forcement of  it  might  follow  as  fast  as  circum- 
stances should  permit. 

They  meant  to  set  up  a  standard  maxim  for 
free  society,  which  should  be  familiar  to  all, 
and  revered  by  all ;  constantly  looked  to,  con- 
stantly labored  for,  and  even  though  never 
perfectly  attained,  constantly  approximated, 
and  thereby  constantly  spreading  and  deepen- 
ing its  influence  and  augmenting  the  happi- 
ness and  value  of  life  to  all  people  of  all  colors 
everywhere.  The  assertion  that  "all  men  are 
created  equal"  was  of  no  practical  use  in 
effecting  our  separation  from  Great  Britain; 
and  it  was  placed  in  the  Declaration  not  for 
that,  but  for  future  use.  Its  authors  meant 
it  to  be  —  as,  thank  God,  it  is  now  proving 
itself  —  a  stumbling-block  to  all  those  who 
in  after  times  might  seek  to  turn  a  free  people 
back  into  the  hateful  paths  of  despotism. 
They  knew  the  proneness  of  prosperity  to 
breed  tyrants,  and  they  meant  when  such 
should  reappear  in  this  fair  land  and  com- 
mence their  vocation,  they  should  find  left  for 
them  at  least  one  hard  nut  to  crack. 

I  had  thought  the  Declaration  promised 
something  better  than  the  condition  of  British 
4  49 


subjects;  but  no,  it  only  meant  [according  to 
Judge  Douglas]  that  we  should  be  equal  to 
them  in  their  own  oppressed  and  unequal 
condition.  According  to  that,  it  gave  no  prom- 
ise that,  having  kicked  off  the  king  and  lords 
of  Great  Britain,  we  should  not  at  once  be 
saddled  with  a  king  and  lords  of  our  own. 

I  had  thought  the  Declaration  contem- 
plated the  progressive  improvement  in  the 
condition  of  all  men  everywhere;  but  no,  it 
merely  "was  adopted  for  the  purpose  of  justi- 
fying the  colonists  in  the  eyes  of  the  civilized 
world  in  withdrawing  their  allegiance  from 
the  British  crown,  and  dissolving  their  con- 
nection with  the  mother  country."  Why, 
that  object  having  been  effected  some  eighty 
years  ago,  the  Declaration  is  of  no  practical 
use  now  —  mere  rubbish  —  old  wadding  left 
to  rot  on  the  battle-field  after  the  victory  is 
won. 

I  understand  you  are  preparing  to  celebrate 
the  "Fourth,"  to-morrow  week.  What  for? 
The  doings  of  that  day  had  no  reference  to 
the  present;  and  quite  half  of  you  are  not 
even  descendants  of  those  who  were  referred 
to  at  that  day.  But  I  suppose  you  will  cele- 
brate, and  will  even  go  so  far  as  to  read  the 
Declaration.  Suppose,  after  you  read  it  once 
in  the  old-fashioned  way,  you  read  it  once 
more  with  Judge  Douglas's  version.  It  will 
then  run  thus:  "We  hold  these  truths  to  be 
self-evident,  that  all  British  subjects  who  were 
on  this  continent  eighty-one  years  ago,  were 

5° 


created  equal  to  all  British  subjects  born  and 
then  residing  in  Great  Britain." 

And  now  I  appeal  to  all  —  to  Democrats  as 
well  as  others  —  are  you  really  willing  that 
the  Declaration  shall  thus  be  frittered  away  ? 
—  thus  left  no  more,  at  most,  than  an  inter- 
esting memorial  of  the  dead  past  ?  —  thus 
shorn  of  its  vitality  and  practical  value,  and 
left  without  the  germ  or  even  the  suggestion 
of  the  individual  rights  of  man  in  it  ? 

How  differently  the  respective  courses  of 
the  Democratic  and  Republican  parties  inci- 
dentally bear  on  the  question  of  forming  a 
will  —  a  public  sentiment  —  for  colonization, 
is  easy  to  see.  The  Republicans  inculcate, 
with  whatever  of  ability  they  can,  that  the 
negro  is  a  man,  that  his  bondage  is  cruelly 
wrong,  and  that  the  field  of  his  oppression 
ought  not  to  be  enlarged.  The  Democrats 
deny  his  manhood;  deny,  or  dwarf  to  insig- 
nificance, the  wrong  of  his  bondage;  so  far 
as  possible,  crush  all  sympathy  for  him,  and 
cultivate  and  excite  hatred  and  disgust  against 
him;  compliment  themselves  as  Union-savers 
for  doing  so;  and  call  the  indefinite  outspread- 
ing of  his  bondage  "a  sacred  right  of  self- 
government." 

The  plainest  print  cannot  be  read  through 
a  gold  eagle ;  and  it  will  be  ever  hard  to  find 
many  men  who  will  send  a  slave  to  Liberia, 
and  pay  his  passage,  while  they  can  send  him 
to  a  new  country  —  Kansas,  for  instance  — 
Si 


and  sell  him  for  fifteen  hundred  dollars,  and 
the  rise.  —  Speech  in  Reply  to  Senator  Douglas 
at  Springfield,  III;  June  26,  1857. 


T  T  7E  are  now  far  into  the  fifth  year  since  a 
VV  policy  was  initiated  with  the  avowed 
object  and  confident  promise  of  putting  an 
end  to  slavery  agitation.  Under  the  operation 
of  that  policy,  that  agitation  has  not  only  not 
ceased,  but  has  constantly  augmented.  In 
my  opinion,  it  will  not  cease  until  a  crisis  shall 
have  been  reached  and  passed.  "A  house 
divided  against  itself  cannot  stand."  I  be- 
lieve this  government  .cannot  endure  per- 
manently half  slave  and  half  free.  I  do  not 
expect  the  Union  to  be  dissolved  —  I  do  not 
expect  the  house  to  fall  —  but  I  do  expect  it 
will  cease  to  be  divided.  It  will  become  all 
one  thing,  or  all  the  other.  Either  the  op- 
ponents of  slavery  will  arrest  the  further 
spread  of  it,  and  place  it  where  the  public 
mind  shall  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in  the 
course  of  ultimate  extinction;  or  its  advocates 
will  push  it  forward  till  it  shall  become  alike 
lawful  in  all  the  States,  old  as  well  as  new, 
North  as  well  as  South. 

It  will  throw  additional  light  ...  to  go 
back  and  run  the  mind  over  the  string  of  his- 
torical facts  already  stated.  Several  things 
will  now  appear  less  dark  and  mysterious  than 
they  did  when  they  were  transpiring.  The 
52 


people  were  to  be  left  "perfectly  free/'  "sub- 
ject only  to  the  Constitution."  What  the  Con- 
stitution had  to  do  with  it  outsiders  could  not 
then  see.  Plainly  enough  now,  it  was  an 
exactly  fitted  niche  for  the  Dred  Scott  decision 
to  afterward  come  in,  and  declare  the  perfect 
freedom  of  the  people  to  be  just  no  freedom 
at  all.  Why  was  the  amendment  expressly 
declaring  the  right  of  the  people  voted  down  ? 
Plainly  enough  now,  the  adoption  of  it  would 
have  spoiled  the  niche  for  the  Dred  Scott 
decision.  Why  was  the  court  decision  held 
up  ?  Why  even  a  senator's  individual  opinion 
withheld  till  after  the  presidential  election? 
Plainly  enough  now,  the  speaking  out  then 
would  have  damaged  the  "perfectly  free" 
argument  upon  which  the  election  was  to  be 
carried.  Why  the  outgoing  President's  felici- 
tation on  the  indorsement?  Why  the  delay 
of  a  reargument?  Why  the  incoming  Presi- 
dent's advance  exhortation  in  favor  of  the 
decision  ?  These  things  look  like  the  cautious 
patting  and  petting  of  a  spirited  horse  pre- 
paratory to  mounting  him,  when  it  is  dreaded 
that  he  may  give  the  rider  a  fall.  And  why 
the  hasty  after-indorsement  of  the  decision 
by  the  President  and  others? 

We  cannot  absolutely  know  that  afl  these 
exact  adaptations  are  the  result  of  preconcert. 
But  when  we  see  a  lot  of  framed  timbers,  dif- 
ferent portions  of  which  we  know  have  been 
gotten  out  at  different  times  and  places  and 
by  different  workmen,  —  Stephen,  Franklin, 

53 


Roger,  and  James,  for  instance,  —  and  we 
see  these  timbers  joined  together,  and  see  they 
exactly  make  the  frame  of  a  house  or  a  mill, 
all  the  tenons  and  mortises  exactly  fitting,  and 
all  the  lengths  and  proportions  of  the  different 
pieces  exactly  adapted  to  their  respective 
places,  and  not  a  piece  too  many  or  too  few, 
not  omitting  even  scaffolding  —  or,  if  a  single 
piece  be  lacking,  we  see  the  place  in  the  frame 
exactly  fitted  and  prepared  yet  to  bring  such 
piece  in  —  in  such  a  case  we  find  it  impossible 
not  to  believe  that  Stephen  and  Franklin  and 
Roger  and  James  all  understood  one  another 
from  the  beginning,  and  all  worked  upon  a 
common  plan  or  draft  drawn  up  before  the 
first  blow  was  struck.  —  Speech  Accepting  the 
Nomination  for  United  States  Senator,  Spring- 
field, III;  June  16,  1858. 


WHAT  was  squatter  sovereignty  ?  I  sup- 
pose if  it  had  any  significance  at  all, 
it  was  the  right  of  the  people  to  govern  them- 
selves, to  be  sovereign  in  their  own  affairs 
while  they  were  squatted  down  in  a  country 
not  their  own,  while  they  had  squatted  on  a 
Territory  that  did  not  belong  to  them,  in  the 
sense  that  a  State  belongs  to  the  people  who 
inhabit  it  —  when  it  belonged  to  the  nation 
—  such  right  to  govern  themselves  was  called 
"  squatter  sovereignty." 

Now  I  wish  you  to  mark  what  has  become 
of  that  squatter  sovereignty.     What  has  be- 

54 


come  of  it  ?  Can  you  get  anybody  to  tell  you 
now  that  the  people  of  a  Territory  have  any 
authority  to  govern  themselves,  in  regard  to 
this  mooted  question  of  slavery,  before  they 
form  a  State  constitution  ?  No  such  thing  at 
all,  although  there  is  a  general  running  fire, 
and  although  there  has  been  a  hurrah  made 
in  every  speech  on  that  side,  assuming  that 
policy  had  given  the  people  of  a  Territory  the 
right  to  govern  themselves  upon  this  question; 
yet  the  point  is  dodged.  To-day  it  has  been 
decided  —  no  more  than  a  year  ago  it  was 
decided  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  and  is  insisted  upon  to-day  —  that  the 
people  of  a  Territory  have  no  right  to  exclude 
slavery  from  a  Territory ;  that  if  any  one  man 
chooses  to  take  slaves  into  a  Territory,  all  the 
rest  of  the  people  have  no  right  to  keep  them 
out. 

We  were  often  ...  in  the  course  of  Judge 
Douglas's  speech  last  night  reminded  that  this 
government  was  made  for  white  men.  .  .  . 
Well,  that  is  putting  it  into  a  shape  in  which 
no  one  wants  to  deny  it;  but  the  judge  then 
goes  into  his  passion  for  drawing  inferences 
that  are  not  warranted.  I  protest  now  and 
forever,  against  that  counterfeit  logic  which 
presumes  that  because  I  do  not  want  a  negro 
woman  for  a  slave,  I  do  necessarily  want  her 
for  a  wife.  My  understanding  is  that  I  need 
not  have  her  for  either;  but,  as  God  made  us 
separate,  we  can  leave  one  another  alone,  and 
55 


do  one  another  much  good  thereby.  There 
are  white  men  enough  to  marry  all  the  white 
women,  and  enough  black  men  to  marry  all 
the  black  women,  and  in  God's  name  let 
them  be  so  married.  The  judge  regales  us 
with  the  terrible  enormities  that  take  place 
by  the  mixture  of  races;  that  the  inferior  race 
bears  the  superior  down.  Why,  judge,  if  we 
do  not  let  them  get  together  in  the  Territories, 
they  won't  mix  there.  [A  voice:  "Three 
cheers  for  Lincoln!"  The  cheers  were  given 
with  a  hearty  good  will.]  I  should  say  at  least 
that  that  is  a  self-evident  truth. 

We  have  .  .  .  among  us  ...  men  who 
have  come  from  Europe  .  .  .  and  settled 
here,  finding  themselves  ourequal  in  all  things. 
If  they  look  back  through  this  history  to  trace 
their  connection  with  those  days  by  blood, 
they  find  they  have  none;  they  cannot  carry 
themselves  back  into  that  glorious  epoch  and 
make  themselves  feel  that  they  are  part  of  us; 
but  when  they  look  through  that  old  Declara- 
tion of  Independence,  they  find  that  those  old 
men  say  that  "We  hold  these  truths  to  be 
self-evident,  that  all  men  are  created  equal," 
and  then  they  feel  that  that  moral  sentiment 
taught  in  that  day  evidences  their  relation  to 
those  men,  that  it  is  the  father  of  all  moral 
principle  in  them,  and  that  they  have  a  right 
to  claim  it  as  though  they  were  blood  of  the 
blood,  and  flesh  of  the  flesh,  of  the  men  who 
wrote  that  Declaration,  and  so  they  are.  That 
56 


is  the  electric  cord  in  that  Declaration  that 
links  the  hearts  of  patriotic  and  liberty-loving 
men  together,  that  will  link  those  patriotic 
hearts  as  long  as  the  love  of  freedom  exists  in 
the  minds  of  men  throughout  the  world.  .  .  . 
According  to  his  [Judge  Douglas's]  con- 
struction [of  the  Declaration],  you  Germans 
are  not  connected  with  it.  Now  I  ask  you,  in 
all  soberness,  if  all  these  things,  if  indulged 
in,  if  ratified,  if  confirmed  and  indorsed,  if 
taught  to  our  children,  and  repeated  to  them, 
do  not  tend  to  rub  out  the  sentiment  of  liberty 
in  the  country,  and  to  transform  this  govern- 
ment into  a  government  of  some  other  form  ? 
Those  arguments  that  are  made,  that  the 
inferior  race  are  to  be  treated  with  as  much 
allowance  as  they  are  capable  of  enjoying; 
that  as  much  is  to  be  done  for  them  as  their 
condition  will  allow  —  what  are  these  argu- 
ments? They  are  the  arguments  that  kings 
have  made  for  enslaving  the  people  in  all  ages 
of  the  world.  You  will  find  that  all  the  argu- 
ments in  favor  of  kingcraft  were  of  this  class; 
they  always  bestrode  the  necks  of  the  people 
— not  that  they  wanted  to  do  it,  but  because 
the  people  were  better  off  for  being  ridden. 
That  is  their  argument,  and  this  argument 
of  the  judge  is  the  same  old  serpent  that  says, 
You  work  and  I  eat,  you  toil  and  I  will  enjoy 
the  fruits  of  it.  Turn  in  whatever  way  you 
will  —  whether  it  come  from  the  mouth  of  a 
king,  an  excuse  for  enslaving  the  people  of 
his  country,  or  from  the  mouth  of  men  of  one 

57 


race  as  a  reason  for  enslaving  the  men  of 
another  race,  it  is  all  the  same  old  serpent, 
and  I  hold  if  that  course  of  argumentation 
that  is  made  for  the  purpose  of  convincing  the 
public  mind  that  we  should  not  care  about 
this  should  be  granted,  it  does  not  stop  with 
the  negro.  I  should  like  to  know  —  taking 
this  old  Declaration  of  Independence,  which 
declares  that  all  men  are  equal  upon  principle, 
and  making  exceptions  to  it  —  where  will  it 
stop?  If  one  man  says  it  does  not  mean  a 
negro,  why  not  another  say  it  does  not  mean 
some  other  man?  If  that  Declaration  is  not 
the  truth,  let  us  get  the  statute-book  in  which 
we  find  it,  and  tear  it  out !  Who  is  so  bold  as 
to  do  it  ?  If  it  is  not  true,  let  us  tear  it  out. 
[Cries  of  "No,  no."]  Let  us  stick  to  it,  then; 
let  us  stand  firmly  by  it,  then. 

It  is  said  in  one  of  the  admonitions  of  our 
Lord,  "Be  ye  perfect,  even  as  your  Father 
which  is  in  heaven  is  perfect."  The  Saviour, 
I  suppose,  did  not  expect  that  any  human 
creature  could  be  perfect  as  the  Father  in 
heaven;  but  ...  he  set  that  up  as  a  stand- 
ard, and  he  who  did  most  toward  reaching 
that  standard  attained  the  highest  degree  of 
moral  perfection.  So  I  say  in  relation  to  the 
principle  that  all  men  are  created  equal,  let 
it  be  as  nearly  reached  as  we  can.  If  we  can- 
not give  freedom  to  every  creature,  let  us  do 
nothing  that  will  impose  slavery  upon  any 
other  creature.  Let  us  then  turn  this  govern- 
58 


ment  back  into  the  channel  in  which  the 
framers  of  the  Constitution  originally  placed 
it.  Let  us  stand  firmly  by  each  other.  If  we 
do  not  do  so,  we  are  tending  in  the  contrary 
direction  that  our  friend  Judge  Douglas  pro- 
poses—  not  intentionally  —  working  in  the 
traces  that  tend  to  make  this  one  universal 
slave  nation.  He  is  one  that  runs  in  that 
direction,  and  as  such  I  resist  him.  —  Speech 
at  Chicago;  July  10,  1858. 


'T'HERE  is  still  another  disadvantage  under 
A  which  we  labor.  ...  It  arises  out  of 
the  relative  positions  of  the  two  persons  who 
stand  before  the  State  as  candidates  for  the 
Senate.  Senator  Douglas  is  of  world-wide 
renown.  All  the  anxious  politicians  of  his 
party,  or  who  have  been  of  his  party  for  years 
past,  have  been  looking  upon  him  as  certainly, 
at  no  distant  day,  to  be  the  President  of  the 
United  States.  They  have  seen  in  his  round, 
jolly,  fruitful  face,  post-offices,  land-offices, 
marshalships,  and  cabinet  appointments, 
chargeships  and  foreign  missions,  bursting 
and  sprouting  out  in  wonderful  exuberance, 
ready  to  be  laid  hold  of  by  their  greedy  hands. 
And  as  they  have  been  gazing  upon  this  at- 
tractive picture  so  long,  they  cannot,  in  the 
little  distraction  that  has  taken  place  in  the 
party,  bring  themselves  to  give  up  the  charm- 
ing hope ;  but  with  greedier  anxiety  they  rush 
about  him,  sustain  him,  and  give  him  marches, 

59 


triumphal  entries,  and  receptions  beyond 
what  even  in  the  days  of  his  highest  prosperity 
they  could  have  brought  about  in  his  favor. 
On  the  contrary,  nobody  has  ever  expected 
me  to  be  President.  In  my  poor,  lean,  lank 
face  nobody  has  ever  seen  that  any  cabbages 
were  sprouting  out.  —  Speech  at  Springfield, 
III.;  July  17,  1858. 


NOW,  my  countrymen,  if  you  have  been 
taught  doctrines  conflicting  with  the 
great  landmarks  of  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence ;  if  you  have  listened  to  suggestions 
which  would  take  away  from  its  grandeur  and 
mutilate  the  fair  symmetry  of  its  proportions; 
if  you  have  been  inclined  to  believe  that  all 
men  are  not  created  equal  in  those  inalien- 
able rights  enumerated  by  our  chart  of  liberty, 
let  me  entreat  you  to  come  back.  Return  to 
the  fountain  whose  waters  spring  close  by 
the  blood  of  the  revolution.  Think  nothing 
of  me  —  take  no  thought  for  the  political  fate 
of  any  man  whomsoever  —  but  come  back 
to  the  truths  that  are  in  the  Declaration  of 
Independence.  You  may  do  anything  with 
me  you  choose,  if  you  will  but  heed  these 
sacred  principles.  You  may  not  only  defeat 
me  for  the  Senate,  but  you  may  take  me  and 
put  me  to  death.  While  pretending  no  indif- 
ference to  earthly  honors,  I  do  claim  to  be 
actuated  in  this  contest  by  something  higher 
than  an  anxiety  for  office.  I  charge  you  to 
60 


drop  every  paltry  and  insignificant  thought 
for  any  man's  success.  It  is  nothing;  I  am 
nothing;  Judge  Douglas  is  nothing.  But  do 
not  destroy  that  immortal  emblem  of  Human- 
ity —  the  Declaration  of  American  Independ- 
ence. —  Speech  at  Lewiston,  III.;  August  17, 
1858. 


YOU  can  fool  all  the  people  some  of  the 
time,  and  some  of  the  people  all  of  the 
time,  but  you  cannot  fool  all  the  people  all 
the  time.  —  Speech  at   Clinton,   III.;    Sep- 
tember 8,  1858. 


JUDGE    Douglas's    discovery:    ...   the 
|     right  to  breed  and  flog  negroes  in  Ne- 
braska was  popular  sovereignty.  —  Speech  at 
Paris,  III.;   September  8,  1858. 


AND  when,  by  all  these  means,  you  have 
succeeded  in  dehumanizing  the  negro; 
when  you  have  put  him  down  and  made  it 
impossible  for  him  to  be  but  as  the  beasts  of 
the  field;  when  you  have  extinguished  his 
soul  in  this  world  and  placed  him  where  the 
ray  of  hope  is  blown  out  as  in  the  darkness 
of  the  damned,  are  you  quite  sure  that  the 
demon  you  have  roused  will  not  turn  and 
rend  you  ?  What  constitutes  the  bulwark  of 
our  own  liberty  and  independence  ?  It  is  not 
61 


our  frowning  battlements,  our  bristling  sea- 
coasts,  our  army  and  our  navy.  These  are 
not  our  reliance  against  tyranny.  All  of  those 
may  be  turned  against  us  without  making  us 
weaker  for  the  struggle.  Our  reliance  is  in  the 
love  of  liberty  which  God  has  planted  in  us. 
Our  defence  is  in  the  spirit  which  prized 
liberty  as  the  heritage  of  all  men,  in  all  lands 
everywhere.  Destroy  this  spirit  and  you  have 
planted  the  seeds  of  despotism  at  your  own 
doors.  Familiarize  yourselves  with  the  chains 
of  bondage  and  you  prepare  your  own  limbs 
to  wear  them.  Accustomed  to  trample  on  the 
rights  of  others,  you  have  lost  the  genius  of 
your  own  independence  and  become  the  fit 
subjects  of  the  first  cunning  tyrant  who  rises 
among  you.  And  let  me  tell  you,  that  all 
these  things  are  prepared  for  you  by  the  teach- 
ings of  history,  if  the  elections  shall  promise 
that  the  next  Dred  Scott  decision  and  all 
future  decisions  will  be  quietly  acquiesced  in 
by  the  people.  —  Speech  at  Edwardsville,  III. ; 
September  13,  1858. 


T  HOLD  that  the  proposition  [advanced  by 
•*•  Judge  Douglas]  that  slavery  cannot  enter 
a  new  country  without  police  regulations  is 
historically  false.  It  is  not  true  at  all.  I  hold 
that  the  history  of  this  country  shows  that  the 
institution  of  slavery  was  originally  planted 
upon  this  continent  without  these  "police 
regulations"  which  the  judge  now  thinks 
62 


necessary  for  the  actual  establishment  of  it. 
Not  only  so,  but  is  there  not  another  fact  — 
how  came  this  Dred  Scott  decision  to  be  made  ? 
It  was  made  upon  the  case  of  a  negro  being 
taken  and  actually  held  in  slavery  in  Min- 
nesota Territory,  claiming  his  freedom  be- 
cause the  act  of  Congress  prohibited  his  being 
so  held  there.  Will  the  judge  pretend  that 
Dred  Scott  was  not  held  there  without  police 
regulations?  There  is  at  least  one  matter  of 
record  as  to  his  having  been  held  in  slavery 
in  the  Territory,  not  only  without  police  reg- 
ulations, but  in  the  teeth  of  congressional 
legislation  supposed  to  be  valid  at  the  time. 
This  shows  that  there  is  vigor  enough  in 
slavery  to  plant  itself  in  a  new  country  even 
against  unfriendly  legislation.  It  takes  not 
only  law  but  the  enforcement  of  law  to  keep 
it  out.  That  is  the  history  of  this  country 
upon  the  subject. 

I  wish  to  ask  one  other  question.  It  being 
understood  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  guarantees  property  in  slaves  in  the 
Territories,  if  there  is  any  infringement  of  the 
right  of  that  property,  would  not  the  United 
States  courts,  organized  for  the  government 
of  the  Territory,  apply  such  remedy  as  might 
be  necessary  in  that  case  ?  It  is  a  maxim  held 
by  the  courts,  that  there  is  no  wrong  without 
its  remedy;  and  the  courts  have  a  remedy 
for  whatever  is  acknowledged  and  treated  as 
a  wrong. 

Again:   I  will  ask  you,  my  friends,  if  you 

63 


were  elected  members  of  the  legislature,  what 
would  be  the  first  thing  you  would  have  to  do 
before  entering  upon  your  duties?  Swear  to 
support  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
Suppose  you  believe,  as  Judge  Douglas  does, 
that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
guarantees  to  your  neighbor  the  right  to  hold 
slaves  in  that  Territory,  •• —  that  they  are  his 
property,  —  how  can  you  clear  your  oaths 
unless  you  give  him  such  legislation  as  is  nec- 
essary to  enable  him  to  enjoy  that  property? 
.  .  .  And  what  I  say  here  will  hold  with  still 
more  force  against  the  judge's  doctrine  of 
"unfriendly  legislation."  How  could  you, 
having  sworn  to  support  the  Constitution,  and 
believing  that  it  guaranteed  the  right  to  hold 
slaves  in  the  Territories,  assist  in  legislation 
intended  to  defeat  that  right?  That  would 
be  violating  your  own  view  of  the  Constitu- 
tion. Not  only  so,  but  if  you  were  to  do  so, 
how  long  would  it  take  the  courts  to  hold  your 
votes  unconstitutional  and  void?  Not  a 
moment. 

Lastly  I  would  ask  —  Is  not  Congress  itself 
under  obligation  to  give  legislative  support 
to  any  right  that  is  established  under  the 
United  States  Constitution?  ...  A  member 
of  Congress  swears  to  support  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States,  and  if  he  sees  a  right 
established  by  that  Constitution  which  needs 
specific  legislative  protection,  can  he  clear  his 
oath  without  giving  that  protection  ?  Let  me 
ask  you  why  many  of  us  who  are  opposed  to 
64 


slavery  upon  principle  give  our  acquiescence 
to  a  fugitive-slave  law  ?  Why  do  we  hold  our- 
selves under  obligations  to  pass  such  a  law, 
and  abide  by  it  when  it  is  passed?  Because 
the  Constitution  makes  provision  that  the 
owners  of  slaves  shall  have  the  right  to  re- 
claim them.  It  gives  the  right  to  reclaim 
slaves,  and  that  right  is,  as  Judge  Douglas 
says,  a  barren  right,  unless  there  is  legislation 
that  will  enforce  it.  —  Debate  with  Douglas  at 
Jonesboro,  III.;  September  15,  1858. 


I  HAVE  never  had  the  least  apprehension 
that  I  or  my  friends  would  marry  negroes 
if  there  was  no  law  to  keep  them  from  it ;  but 
as  Judge  Douglas  and  his  friends  seem  to  be 
in  great  apprehension  that  they  might,  if  there 
were  no  law  to  keep  them  from  it,  I  give  him 
the  most  solemn  pledge  that  I  will  to  the  very 
last  stand  by  the  law  of  this  State,  which  for- 
bids the  marrying  of  white  people  with  ne- 
groes. I  will  add  one  further  word,  which  is 
this:  that  I  do  not  understand  that  there  is 
any  place  where  an  alteration  of  the  social  and 
political  relations  of  the  negro  and  the  white 
man  can  be  made  except  in  the  State  legisla- 
ture —  not  in  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States;  and  as  I  do  not  really  apprehend  the 
approach  of  any  such  thing  myself,  an  1  as 
Judge  Douglas  seems  to  be  in  constant  horror 
that  some  such  danger  is  rapidly  approach- 
ing, I  propose,  as  the  best  means  to  prevent 
5  65 


it,  that  the  judge  be  kept  at  home  and  placed 
in  the  State  legislature  to  fight  the  measure. 
—  Debate  with  Douglas  at  Charleston,  III. ; 
September  18,  1858. 


THE  judge  has  alluded  to  the  Declaration 
of  Independence,  and  insisted  that  ne- 
groes are  not  included  in  that  Declaration; 
and  that  it  is  a  slander  upon  the  framers  of 
that  instrument  to  suppose  that  negroes  were 
meant  therein;  and  he  asks  you:  Is  it  pos- 
sible to  believe  that  Mr.  Jefferson,  who  penned 
the  immortal  paper,  could  have  supposed 
himself  applying  the  language  of  that  instru- 
ment to  the  negro  race,  and  yet  held  a  portion 
of  that  race  in  slavery  ?  Would  he  not  at  once 
have  freed  them  ?  I  only  have  to  remark  upon 
this  part  of  the  judge's  speech  that  I  believe 
the  entire  records  of  the  world,  from  the  date 
of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  up  to 
within  three  years  ago,  may  be  searched  in 
vain  for  one  single  affirmation,  from  one 
single  man,  that  the  negro  was  not  included 
in  the  Declaration  of  Independence;  I  think 
I  may  defy  Judge  Douglas  to  show  that  he 
ever  said  so,  that  Washington  ever  said  so, 
that  any  President  ever  said  so,  that  any 
member  of  Congress  ever  said  so,  or  that  any 
living  man  upon  the  whole  earth  ever  said 
so,  until  the  necessities  of  the  present  policy 
of  the  Democratic  party  in  regard  to  slavery 
had  to  invent  that  affirmation.  And  I  will 
66 


remind  Judge  Douglas  and  this  audience  that 
while  Mr.  Jefferson  was  the  owner  of  slaves, 
as  undoubtedly  he  was,  in  speaking  upon  this 
very  subject,  he  used  the  strong  language  that 
"he  trembled  for  his  country  when  he  remem- 
bered that  God  was  just";  and  I  will  offer 
the  highest  premium  in  my  power  to  Judge 
Douglas  if  he  will  show  that  he,  in  all  his  life, 
ever  uttered  a  sentiment  at  all  akin  to  that 
of  Jefferson. 

I  have  never  manifested  any  impatience 
with  the  necessities  that  spring  from  the 
actual  presence  of  black  people  amongst  us, 
and  the  actual  existence  of  slavery  amongst 
us  where  it  does  already  exist;  but  I  have 
insisted  that,  in  legislating  for  new  countries 
where  it  does  not  exist,  there  is  no  just  rule 
other  than  that  of  moral  and  abstract  right. 
With  reference  to  those  new  countries,  those 
maxims  as  to  the  right  of  a  people  to  "life, 
liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness"  were 
the  just  rules  to  be  constantly  referred  to. 
There  is  no  misunderstanding  this,  except  by 
men  interested  to  misunderstand  it.  ... 
The  real  difference  between  Douglas  and  his 
friends  and  the  Republicans  is  that  the  judge 
is  not  in  favor  of  making  any  difference  be- 
tween slavery  and  liberty  —  that  he  is  in 
favor  of  eradicating,  of  pressing  out  of  view, 
the  questions  of  preference  in  this  country  for 
free  or  slave  institutions;  and  consequently 
every  sentiment  he  utters  discards  the  idea 

67 


that  there  is  any  wrong  in  slavery.  Every- 
thing that  emanates  from  him  or  his  coad- 
jutors in  their  course  of  policy  carefully  ex- 
cludes the  thought  that  there  is  anything 
wrong  in  slavery.  If  you  will  take  the  judge's 
speeches,  and  select  the  short  and  pointed 
sentences  expressed  by  him,  —  as  his  declara- 
tion that  he  "don't  care  whether  slavery  is 
voted  up  or  down,"  —  you  will  see  at  once 
that  this  is  perfectly  logical,  if  you  do  not 
admit  that  slavery  is  wrong.  If  you  do  admit 
that  it  is  wrong,  Judge  Douglas  cannot  logi- 
cally say  he  don't  care  whether  a  wrong  is 
voted  up  or  voted  down.  Judge  Douglas 
declares  that  if  any  community  wants  slavery 
they  have  a  right  to  have  it.  He  can  say  that 
logically,  if  he  says  that  there  is  no  wrong  in 
slavery ;  but  if  you  admit  that  there  is  a  wrong 
in  it,  he  cannot  logically  say  that  anybody  has 
a  right  to  do  wrong.  He  insists  that  upon  the 
score  of  equality  the  owners  of  slaves  and 
owners  of  property  —  of  horses  and  every 
other  sort  of  property —  should  be  alike,  and 
hold  them  alike  in  a  new  Territory.  That  is 
perfectly  logical,  if  the  two  species  of  prop- 
erty are  alike,  and  are  equally  founded  in 
right.  But  if  you  admit  that  one  of  them  is 
wrong,  you  cannot  institute  any  equality  be- 
tween right  and  wrong.  And  from  this  differ- 
ence of  sentiment  —  the  belief  on  the  part  of 
one  that  the  institution  is  wrong,  and  a  policy 
springing  from  that  belief  which  looks  to  the 
arrest  of  the  enlargement  of  that  wrong;  and 
68 


this  other  sentiment,  that  it  is  no  wrong,  and 
a  policy  sprung  from  that  sentiment  which 
will  tolerate  no  idea  of  preventing  that  wrong 
from  growing  larger,  and  looks  to  there  never 
being  an  end  of  it  through  all  the  existence  of 
things  —  arises  the  real  difference  between 
Judge  Douglas  and  his  friends  on  the  one 
hand,  and  the  Republicans  on  the  other. 
Now,  I  confess  myself  as  belonging  to  that 
class  in  the  country  who  contemplate  slavery 
as  a  moral,  social,  and  political  evil,  having 
due  regard  for  its  actual  existence  amongst 
us,  and  the  difficulties  of  getting  rid  of  it  in 
any  satisfactory  way,  and  to  all  the  constitu- 
tional obligations  which  have  been  thrown 
about  it;  but  who,  nevertheless,  desire  a 
policy  that  looks  to  the  prevention  of  it  as  a 
wrong,  and  looks  hopefully  to  the  time  when 
as  a  wrong  it  may  come  to  an  end. 

Judge  Douglas  —  and  whoever,  like  him, 
teaches  that  the  negro  has  no  share,  humble 
though  it  may  be,  in  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence —  is  going  back  to  the  era  of  our 
liberty  and  independence,  and,  so  far  as  in 
him  lies,  muzzling  the  cannon  that  thunders 
its  annual  joyous  return;  ...  he  is  blowing 
out  the  moral  lights  around  us,  when  he  con- 
tends that  whoever  wants  slaves  has  a  right 
to  hold  them;  ...  he  is  penetrating,  so  far  as 
lies  in  his  power,  the  human  soul,  and  eradi- 
cating the  light  of  reason  and  the  love  of 
liberty,  when  he  is  in  every  possible  way  pre- 
69 


paring  the  public  mind,  by  his  vast  influence, 
for  making  the  institution  of  slavery  perpetual 
and  national.  —  Debate  with  Douglas  at 
Galesburg,  III. ;  October  7,  1858. 


JUDGE  DOUGLAS  asks  you,  "Why 
cannot  the  institution  of  slavery,  or 
rather,  why  cannot  the  nation,  part  slave 
and  part  free,  continue  as  our  fathers  made 
it  forever?"  In  the  first  place,  I  insist  that 
our  fathers  did  not  make  this  nation  half 
slave  and  half  free,  or  part  slave  and  part 
free.  I  insist  that  they  found  the  institution 
of  slavery  existing  here.  They  did  not  make 
it  so,  but  they,  left  it  so  because  they  knew 
of  no  way  to  get  rid  of  it  at  that  time. 
.  .  .  More  than  that:  when  the  fathers 
of  the  government  cut  off  the  source  of 
slavery  by  the  abolition  of  the  slave-trade, 
and  adopted  a  system  of  restricting  it  from 
the  new  Territories  where  it  had  not  existed, 
I  maintain  that  they  placed  it  where  they 
understood,  and  all  sensible  men  understood, 
it  was  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction; 
and  when  Judge  Douglas  asks  me  why  it  can- 
not continue  as  our  fathers  made  it,  I  ask  him 
why  he  and  his  friends  could  not  let  it  re- 
main as  our  fathers  made  it  ? 

It  is  precisely  all  I  ask  of  him  in  relation  to 

the  institution  of  slavery,   that  it  shall  be 

placed  upon  the  basis  that  our  fathers  placed 

it  upon.     Mr.  Brooks,  of  South  Carolina, 

70 


once  said,  and  truly  said,  that  when  this  gov- 
ernment was  established,  no  one  expected  the 
institution  of  slavery  to  last  until  this  day; 
and  that  the  men  who  formed  this  government 
were  wiser  and  better  than  the  men  of  these 
days;  but  the  men  of  these  days  had  experi- 
ence which  the  fathers  had  not,  and  that  ex- 
perience had  taught  them  the  invention  of 
the  cotton-gin,  and  this  had  made  the  per- 
petuation of  the  institution  of  slavery  a  neces- 
sity in  this  country.  Judge  Douglas  could 
not  let  it  stand  upon  the  basis  where  our 
fathers  placed  it,  but  removed  it,  and  put  it 
upon  the  cotton-gin  basis.  It  is  a  question, 
therefore,  for  him  and  his  friends  to  answer 
—  why  they  could  not  let  it  .remain  where 
the  fathers  of  the  government  originally 
placed  it. 

Does  the  judge  mean  to  say  that  the  ter- 
ritorial legislature  in  legislating  may,  by  with- 
holding necessary  laws  or  by  passing  un- 
friendly laws,  nullify  .  .  .  constitutional  right  ? 
Does  he  mean  to  say  that  ?  Does  he  mean  to 
ignore  the  proposition,  so  long  and  well  es- 
tablished in  law,  that  what  you  cannot  do 
directly,  you  cannot  do  indirectly  ?  Does  he 
mean  that?  The  truth  about  the  matter  is 
this:  Judge  Douglas  has  sung  paeans  to  his 
"popular  sovereignty"  doctrine  until  his 
Supreme  Court,  co-operating  with  him,  has 
squatted  his  squatter  sovereignty  out.  But 
he  will  keep  up  this  species  of  humbuggery 


about  squatter  sovereignty.  He  has  at  last 
invented  this  sort  of  do-nothing  sovereignty 
—  that  the  people  may  exclude  slavery  by  a 
sort  of  "sovereignty"  that  is  exercised  by 
doing  nothing  at  all.  Is  not  that  running  his 
popular  sovereignty  down  awfully?  Has  it 
not  got  down  as  thin  as  the  homeopathic  soup 
that  was  made  by  boiling  the  shadow  of  a 
pigeon  that  had  starved  to  death?  But  at 
last,  when  it  is  brought  to  the  test  of  close 
reasoning,  there  is  not  even  that  thin  decoc- 
tion of  it  left.  It  is  a  presumption  impossible 
in  the  domain  of  thought.  It  is  precisely  no 
other  than  the  putting  of  that  most  unphilo- 
sophical  proposition,  that  two  bodies  can  oc- 
cupy the  same  space  at  the  same  time.  The 
Dred  Scott  decision  covers  the  whole  ground, 
and  while  it  occupies  it,  there  is  no  room  even 
for  the  shadow  of  a  starved  pigeon  to  occupy 
the  same  ground.  —  Debate  with  Douglas  at 
Quincy,  III.;  October  13,  1858. 


BUT  is  it  true  that  all  the  difficulty  and 
agitation  we  have  in  regard  to  this  insti- 
tution of  slavery  springs  from  office-seeking 
—  from  the  mere  ambition  of  politicians  ?  Is 
that  the  truth?  How  many  times  have  we 
had  danger  from  this  question  ?  Go  back  to 
the  day  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  Go 
back  to  the  nullification  question,  at  the  bot- 
tom of  which  lay  this  same  slavery  question. 
Go  back  to  the  time  of  the  annexation  of 
72 


Texas.  Go  back  to  the  troubles  that  led  to 
the  compromise  of  1850.  You  will  find  that 
every  time,  with  the  single  exception  of  the 
nullification  question,  they  sprang  from  an 
endeavor  to  spread  this  institution.  There 
never  was  a  party  in  the  history  of  this  country, 
and  there  probably  never  will  be,  of  sufficient 
strength  to  disturb  the  general  peace  of  the 
country.  Parties  themselves  may  be  divided 
and  quarrel  on  minor  questions,  yet  it  extends 
not  beyond  the  parties  themselves.  But  does 
not  this  question  make  a  disturbance  outside 
of  political  circles  ?  Does  it  not  enter  into  the 
churches  and  rend  them  asunder?  What 
divided  the  great  Methodist  Church  into  two 
parts,  North  and  South?  What  has  raised 
this  constant  disturbance  in  every  Presby- 
terian general  assembly  that  meets?  What 
disturbed  the  Unitarian  Church  in  this  very 
city  two  years  ago?  What  has  jarred  and 
shaken  the  great  American  Tract  Society 
recently  —  not  yet  splitting  it,  but  sure  to 
divide  it  in  the  end?  Is  it  not  this  same 
mighty,  deep-seated  power  that  somehow 
operates  on  the  minds  of  men,  exciting  and 
stirring  them  Up  in  every  avenue  of  society  — 
in  politics,  in  religion,  in  literature,  in  morals, 
in  all  the  manifold  relations  of  life?  Is  this 
the  work  of  politicians?  Is  that  irresistible 
power,  which  for  fifty  years  has  shaken  the 
government  and  agitated  the  people,  to  be 
stilled  and  subdued  by  pretending  that  it  is 
an  exceedingly  simple  thing,  and  we  ought 

73 


not  to  talk  about  it?  If  you  will  get  every- 
body else  to  stop  talking  about  it,  I  assure  you 
I  will  quit  before  they  have  half  done  so.  But 
where  is  the  philosophy  or  statesmanship 
which  assumes  that  you  can  quiet  that  dis- 
turbing element  in  our  society  which  has  dis- 
turbed us  for  more  than  half  a  century,  which 
has  been  the  only  serious  danger  that  has 
threatened  our  institutions  —  I  say,  where 
is  the  philosophy  or  the  statesmanship  based 
on  the  assumption  that  we  are  to  quit  talking 
about  it,  and  that  the  public  mind  is  all  at 
once  to  cease  being  agitated  by  it?  Yet  this 
is  the  policy  here  in  the  North  that  Douglas 
is  advocating  —  that  we  are  to  care  nothing 
about  it !  I  ask  you  if  it  is  not  a  false  philos- 
ophy? Is  it  not  a  false  statesmanship  that 
undertakes  to  build  up  a  system  of  policy 
upon  the  basis  of  caring  nothing  about  the 
very  thing  that  everybody  does  care  the  most 
about  —  a  thing  which  all  experience  has 
shown  we  care  a  very  great  deal  about  ? 

That  is  the  real  issue.  That  is  the  issue 
that  will  continue  in  this  country  when  these 
poor  tongues  of  Judge  Douglas  and  myself 
shall  be  silent.  It  is  the  eternal  struggle  be- 
tween these  two  principles  —  right  and  wrong 
—  throughout  the  world.  They  are  the  two 
principles  that  have  stood  face  to  face  from 
the  beginning  of  time;  and  will  ever  continue 
to  struggle.  The  one  is  the  common  right  of 
humanity,  and  the  other  the  divine  right  of 
74 


kings.  It  is  the  same  principle  in  whatever 
shape  it  develops  itself.  It  is  the  same  spirit 
that  says,  "  You  toil  and  work  and  earn  bread, 
and  I'll  eat  it."  No  matter  in  what  shape  it 
comes,  whether  from  the  mouth  of  a  king  who 
seeks  to  bestride  the  people  of  his  own  nation 
and  live  by  the  fruit  of  their  labor,  or  from  one 
race  of  men  as  an  apology  for  enslaving  an- 
other race,  it  is  the  same  tyrannical  principle. 

Why,  this  is  a  monstrous  sort  of  talk  about 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States !  There 
has  never  been  as  outlandish  or  lawless  a 
doctrine  from  the  mouth  of  any  respectable 
man  on  earth.  I  do  not  believe  it  is  a  consti- 
tutional right  to  hold  slaves  in  a  Territory  of 
the  United  States.  I  believe  the  decision  was 
improperly  made,  and  I  go  for  reversing  it. 
Judge  Douglas  is  furious  against  those  who 
go  for  reversing  a  decision.  But  he  is  for 
legislating  it  out  of  all  force  while  the  law 
itself  stands.  I  repeat  that  there  has  never 
been  so  monstrous  a  doctrine  uttered  from  the 
mouth  of  a  respectable  man.  .  .  . 

I  defy  any  man  to  make  an  argument  that 
will  justify  unfriendly  legislation  to  deprive  a 
slaveholder  of  his  right  to  hold  his  slave  in 
a  Territory,  that  will  not  equally,  in  all  its 
length,  breadth,  and  thickness,  furnish  an 
argument  for  nullifying  the  fugitive-slave  law. 
Why,  there  is  not  such  an  Abolitionist  in  the 
nation  as  Douglas,  after  all.  —  Debate  with 
Douglas  at  Alton,  III.;  October  15,  1858. 
75 


THE  emotions  of  defeat  at  the  close  of  a 
struggle  in  which  I  felt  more  than  a 
merely  selfish  interest,  and  to  which  defeat 
the  use  of  your  name  contributed  largely,  are 
fresh  upon  me ;  but  even  in  this  mood  I  can- 
not for  a  moment  suspect  you  of  anything 
dishonorable.  —  Letter  to  J.  J.  Crittenden; 
November  4,  1858. 

I  AM  glad  I  made  the  late  race.  It  gave  me 
a  hearing  on  the  great  and  durable  ques- 
tion of  the  age,  which  I  could  have  had  in  no 
other  way;  and  though  I  now  sink  out  of 
view,  and  shall  be  forgotten,  I  believe  I  have 
made  some  marks  which  will  tell  for  the  cause 
of  civil  liberty  long  after  I  am  gone.  —  Letter 
to  Dr.  A.  G.  Henry;  November  19,  1858. 

WHILE  I  desired  the  result  of  the  late 
canvass  to  have  been  different,  I  still 
regard  it  as  an  exceeding  small  matter.  I 
think  we  have  fairly  entered  upon  a  durable 
struggle  as  to  whether  this  nation  is  to  ulti- 
mately become  all  slave  or  all  free,  and  though 
I  fall  early  in  the  contest,  it  is  nothing  if  I 
shall  have  contributed,  in  the  least  degree,  to 
the  final  rightful  result.  —  Letter  to  H.  D. 
Sharpe;  December  8,  1858. 

/GENTLEMEN:   Your  kind  note  inviting 

^J"   me  to  attend  a  festival  in  Boston,  on  the 

28th  instant,   in  honor  of  the  birthday  of 

76 


Thomas  Jefferson,  was  duly  received.  My 
engagements  are  such  that  I  cannot  attend. 

Bearing  in  mind  that  about  seventy  years 
ago  two  great  political  parties  were  first 
formed  in  this  country,  that  Thomas  Jeffer- 
son was  the  head  of  one  of  them  and  Boston 
the  headquarters  of  the  other,  it  is  both  curi- 
ous and  interesting  that  those  supposed  to 
descend  politically  from  the  party  opposed 
to  Jefferson  should  now  be  celebrating  his 
birthday  in  their  own  original  seat  of  empire, 
while  those  claiming  political  descent  from 
him  have  nearly  ceased  to  breathe  his  name 
everywhere. 

Remembering,  too,  that  the  Jefferson  party 
was  formed  upon  its  supposed  superior  devo- 
tion to  the  personal  rights  of  men,  holding  the 
rights  of  property  to  be  secondary  only,  and 
greatly  inferior,  and  assuming  that  the  so- 
called  Democracy  of  to-day  are  the  Jefferson, 
and  their  opponents  the  anti- Jefferson  party, 
it  will  be  equally  interesting  to  note  how  com- 
pletely the  two  have  changed  hands  as  to  the 
principle  upon  which  they  were  originally  sup- 
posed to  be  divided.  The  Democracy  of  to- 
day hold  the  liberty  of  one  man  to  be  abso- 
lutely nothing,  when  in  conflict  with  another 
man's  right  of  property;  Republicans,  on  the 
contrary,  are  for  both  the  man  and  the  dollar, 
but  in  case  of  conflict  the  man  before  the  dollar. 

I  remember  being  once  much  amused  at 
seeing  two  partially  intoxicated  men  engaged 
in  a  fight  with  their  great-coats  on,  which 

77 


fight,  after  a  long  and  rather  harmless  contest, 
ended  in  each  having  fought  himself  out  of 
his  own  coat  and  into  that  of  the  other.  If 
the  two  leading  parties  of  this  day  are  really 
identical  with  the  two  in  the  days  of  Jefferson 
and  Adams,  they  have  performed  the  same 
feat  as  the  two  drunken  men. 

But,  soberly,  it  is  now  no  child's  play  to 
save  the  principles  of  Jefferson  from  total 
overthrow  in  this  nation.  One  would  state 
with  great  confidence  that  he  could  convince 
any  sane  child  that  the  simpler  propositions 
of  Euclid  are  true;  but  nevertheless  he  would 
fail,  utterly,  with  one  who  should  deny  the 
definitions  and  axioms.  The  principles  of 
Jefferson  are  the  definitions  and  axioms  of 
free  society.  And  yet  they  are  denied  and 
evaded,  with  no  small  show  of  success.  One 
dashingly  calls  them  "glittering  generalities." 
Another  bluntly  calls  them  "self-evident  lies." 
And  others  insidiously  argue  that  they  apply 
to  "superior  races."  These  expressions,  dif- 
fering in  form,  are  identical  in  object  and 
effect  —  the  supplanting  the  principles  of  free 
government,  and  restoring  those  of  classifica- 
tion, caste,  and  legitimacy.  They  would  de- 
light a  convocation  of  crowned  heads  plotting 
against  the  people.  They  are  the  vanguard, 
the  miners  and  sappers  of  returning  despot- 
ism. We  must  repulse  them,  or  they  will  sub- 
jugate us.  This  is  a  world  of  compensation; 
and  he  who  would  be  no  slave  must  consent 
to  have  no  slave.  Those  who  deny  freedom 

78 


to  others  deserve  it  not  for  themselves,  and, 
under  a  just  God,  cannot  long  retain  it.  All 
honor  to  Jefferson  —  to  the  man  who,  in  the 
concrete  pressure  of  a  struggle  for  national 
independence  by  a  single  people,  had  the  cool- 
ness, forecast,  and  capacity  to  introduce  into 
a  merely  revolutionary  document  an  abstract 
truth,  applicable  to  all  men  and  all  times,  and 
so  to  embalm  it  there  that  to-day  and  in  all 
coming  days  it  shall  be  a  rebuke  and  a  stum- 
bling-block to  the  very  harbingers  of  reap- 
pearing tyranny  and  oppression.  —  Letter  to 
Jefferson  Dinner  Committee  of  Boston;  April 
6,  1859. 

YOU  will  probably  adopt  resolutions  in  the 
nature  of  a  platform.  I  think  the  only 
temptation  will  be  to  lower  the  Republican 
standard  in  order  to  gather  recruits.  In  my 
judgment  such  a  step  would  be  a  serious  mis- 
take, and  open  a  gap  through  which  more 
would  pass  out  than  pass  in.  And  this  would 
be  the  same  whether  the  letting  down  should 
be  in  deference  to  Douglasism  or  to  the  South- 
ern opposition  element;  either  would  surren- 
der the  object  of  the  Republican  organization 
—  the  preventing  of  the  spread  and  nationali- 
zation of  slavery.  This  object  surrendered, 
the  organization  would  go  to  pieces.  I  do 
not  mean  by  this  that  no  Southern  man  must 
be  placed  upon  our  national  ticket  in  1860. 
There  are  many  men  in  the  slave  States  for 
any  one  of  whom  I  could  cheerfully  vote  to 

79 


be  either  President  or  Vice-President,  pro- 
vided he  would  enable  me  to  do  so  with  safety 
to  the  Republican  cause,  without  lowering 
the  Republican  standard.  This  is  the  indis- 
pensable condition  of  a  union  with  us;  it  is 
idle  to  talk  of  any  other.  Any  other  would  be 
as  fruitless  to  the  South  as  distasteful  to  the 
North,  the  whole  ending  in  common  defeat. 
Let  a  union  be  attempted  on  the  basis  of 
ignoring  the  slavery  question,  and  magnifying 
other  questions  which  the  people  are  just  now 
not  caring  about,  and  it  will  result  in  gaining 
no  single  electoral  vote  in  the  South,  and  los- 
ing every  one  in  the  North.  —  Letter  to  M.  W. 
Delahay;  May  14,  1859. 

T  TNDERSTANDING  the  spirit  of  our  in- 
*J  stitutions  to  aim  at  the  elevation  of  men, 
I  am  opposed  to  whatever  tends  to  degrade 
them.  I  have  some  little  notoriety  for  com- 
miserating the  oppressed  negro;  and  I  should 
be  strangely  inconsistent  if  I  could  favor  any 
project  for  curtailing  the  existing  rights  of 
white  men,  even  though  born  in  different 
lands,  and  speaking  different  languages  from 
myself.  —  Letter  to  Dr.  Theodore  Canisius; 
May  17,  1859. 

TWO  things  done  by  the  Ohio  Republi- 
can  convention  —  the   repudiation   of 
Judge  Swan,  and  the  "plank"  for  a  repeal 
of  the  fugitive-slave  law  —  I  very  much  re- 
gretted.    These  two  things  are  of  a  piece; 
80 


and  they  are  viewed  by  many  good  men, 
sincerely  opposed  to  slavery,  as  a  struggle 
against,  and  in  disregard  of,  the  Constitution 
itself.  And  it  is  the  very  thing  that  will 
greatly  endanger  our  cause,  if  it  be  not  kept 
out  of  our  national  convention.  There  is 
another  thing  our  friends  are  doing  which 
gives  me  some  uneasiness.  It  is  their  leaning 
toward  "popular  sovereignty."  There  are 
three  substantial  objections  to  this.  First,  no 
party  can  command  respect  which  sustains 
this  year  what  it  opposed  last.  Secondly, 
Douglas  (who  is  the  most  dangerous  enemy 
of  liberty,  because  the  most  insidious  one) 
would  have  little  support  in  the  North,  and 
by  consequence,  no  capital  to  trade  on  in  the 
South,  if  it  were  not  for  his  friends  thus  mag- 
nifying him  and  his  humbug.  But  lastly,  and 
chiefly,  Douglas's  popular  sovereignty,  ac- 
cepted by  the  public  mind  as  a  just  principle, 
nationalizes  slavery,  and  revives  the  African 
slave-trade  inevitably.  Taking  slaves  into 
new  Territories,  and  buying  slaves  in  Africa, 
are  identical  things,  identical  rights  or  identi- 
cal wrongs,  and  the  argument  which  estab- 
lishes one  will  establish  the  other.  Try  a 
thousand  years  for  a  sound  reason  why  Con- 
gress shall  not  hinder  the  people  of  Kansas 
from  having  slaves,  and  when  you  have  found 
it,  it  will  be  an  equally  good  one  why  Con- 
gress should  not  hinder  the  people  of  Georgia 
from  importing  slaves  from  Africa.  —  Letter 
to  Samuel  Galloway;  July  28,  1859. 
6  81 


THIS  is  an  idea,  I  suppose,  which  has 
arisen  in  Judge  Douglas's  mind  from 
his  peculiar  structure.  I  suppose  the  institu- 
tion of  slavery  really  looks  small  to  him.  He 
is  so  put  up  by  nature  that  a  lash  upon  his 
back  would  hurt  him,  but  a  lash  upon  any- 
body else's  back  does  not  hurt  him.  That  is 
the  build  of  the  man,  and  consequently  he 
looks  upon  the  matter  of  slavery  in  this  un- 
important light. 

Judge  Douglas  ought  to  remember,  when 
he  is  endeavoring  to  force  this  policy  upon  the 
American  people,  that  while  he  is  put  up  in 
that  way,  a  good  many  are  not.  He  ought  to 
remember  that  there  was  once  in  this  country 
a  man  by  the  name  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  sup- 
posed to  be  a  Democrat  —  a  man  whose 
principles  and  policy  are  not  very  prevalent 
amongst  Democrats  to-day,  it  is  true;  but 
that  man  did  not  take  exactly  this  view  of  the 
insignificance  of  the  element  of  slavery  which 
our  friend  Judge  Douglas  does.  In  contem- 
plation of  this  thing,  we  all  know  he  was  led 
to  exclaim,  "I  tremble  for  my  country  when 
I  remember  that  God  is  just!"  We  know 
how  he  looked  upon  it  when  he  thus  expressed 
himself.  There  was  danger  to  this  country, 
danger  of  the  avenging  justice  of  God,  in  that 
little  unimportant  popular-sovereignty  ques- 
tion of  Judge  Douglas.  He  supposed  there  was 
a  question  of  "God's  eternal  justice  wrapped 
up  in  the  enslaving  of  any  race  of  men,  or 
any  man,  and  that  those  who  did  so  braved 
82 


the  arm  of  Jehovah  —  that  when  a  nation  thus 
dared  the  Almighty,  every  friend  of  that  na- 
tion had  cause  to  dread  his  wrath.  Choose 
ye  between  Jefferson  and  Douglas  as  to  what 
is  the  true  view  of  this  element  among  us. 

Then  I  say  if  this  principle  is  established, 
that  there  is  no  wrong  in  slavery,  and  whoever 
wants  it  has  a  right  to  have  it;  that  it  is  a 
matter  of  dollars  and  cents;  a  sort  of  question 
as  to  how  they  shall  deal  with  brutes;  that 
between  us  and  the  negro  here  there  is  no 
sort  of  question,  but  that  at  the  South  the 
question  is  between  the  negro  and  the  croco- 
dile ;  that  it  is  a  mere  matter  of  policy ;  that 
there  is  a  perfect  right,  according  to  interest, 
to  do  just  as  you  please  —  when  this  is  done, 
where  this  doctrine  prevails,  the  miners  and 
sappers  will  have  formed  public  opinion  for 
the  slave-trade.  They  will  be  ready  for  Jeff 
Davis  and  Stephens,  and  other  leaders  of 
that  company,  to  sound  the  bugle  for  the  re- 
vival of  the  slave-trade,  for  the  second  Dred 
Scott  decision,  for  the  flood  of  slavery  to  be 
poured  over  the  free  States,  while  we  shall  be 
here  tied  down  and  helpless,  and  run  over  like 
sheep.  —  Speech  at  Columbus,  Ohio;  Sep- 
tember 16,  1859. 


AT  ...  Memphis,  he    [Judge    Douglas] 
declared  that  in  all  contests  between  the 
negro  and  the  white  man,  he  was  for  the  white 

83 


man,  but  that  in  all  questions  between  the 
negro  and  the  crocodile  he  was  for  the 
negro.  .  .  . 

The  first  inference  seems  to  be  that  if  you 
do  not  enslave  the  negro  you  are  wronging  the 
white  man  in  some  way  or  other;  and  that 
whoever  is  opposed  to  the  negro  being  en- 
slaved is,  in  some  way  or  other,  against  the 
white  man.  Is  not  that  a  falsehood  ?  If  there 
was  a  necessary  conflict  between  the  white 
man  and  the  negro,  I  should  be  for  the  white 
man  as  much  as  Judge  Douglas;  but  I  say 
there  is  no  such  necessary  conflict.  I  say  that 
there  is  room  enough  for  us  all  to  be  free,  and 
that  it  not  only  does  not  wrong  the  white  man 
that  the  negro  should  be  free,  but  it  positively 
wrongs  the  mass  of  the  white  men  that  the 
negro  should  be  enslaved;  that  the  mass  of 
white  men  are  really  injured  by  the  effects  of 
slave-labor  in  the  vicinity  of  the  fields  of  their 
own  labor.  .  .  . 

The  other  branch  of  it  is,  that  in  a  struggle 
between  the  negro  and  the  crocodile,  he  is  for 
the  negro.  Well,  I  don't  know  that  there  is 
any  struggle  between  the  negro  and  the  croco- 
dile, either.  I  suppose  that  if  a  crocodile  (or, 
as  we  old  Ohio  River  boatmen  used  to  call 
them,  alligators)  should  come  across  a  white 
man,  he  would  kill  him  if  he  could,  and  so  he 
would  a  negro.  But  what,  at  last,  is  this  prop- 
osition? I  believe  that  it  is  a  sort  of  propo- 
sition in  proportion,  which  may  be  stated 
thus:  "As  the  negro  is  to  the  white  man,  so 
84 


is  the  crocodile  to  the  negro ;  and  as  the  negro 
may  rightfully  treat  the  crocodile  as  a  beast  or 
reptile,  so  the  white  man  may  rightfully  treat 
the  negro  as  a  beast  or  reptile."  That  is 
really  the  point  of  all  that  argument  of  his. 

Now,  my  brother  Kentuckians,  who  believe 
in  this,  you  ought  to  thank  Judge  Douglas  for 
having  put  that  in  a  much  more  taking  way 
than  any  of  yourselves  have  done. 

I  think  that  there  is  a  real  popular  sover- 
eignty in  the  world.  I  think  a  definition  of 
popular  sovereignty,  in  the  abstract,  would 
be  about  this  —  that  each  man  shall  do  pre- 
cisely as  he  pleases  with  himself,  and  with  all 
those  things  which  exclusively  concern  him. 
Applied  in  government,  this  principle  would 
be,  that  a  general  government  shall  do  all 
those  things  which  pertain  to  it,  and  all  the 
local  governments  shall  do  precisely  as  they 
please  in  respect  to  those  matters  which  ex- 
clusively concern  them. 

Labor  is  the  great  source  from  which  nearly 
all,  if  not  all,  human  comforts  and  necessities 
are  drawn.  There  is  a  difference  in  opinion 
about  the  elements  of  labor  in  society.  Some 
men  assume  that  there  is  a  necessary  connec- 
tion between  capital  and  labor,  and  that  con- 
nection draws  within  it  the  whole  of  the  labor 
of  the  community.  They  assume  that  nobody 
works  unless  capital  excites  him  to  work. 
They  begin  next  to  consider  what  is  the  best 

85 


way.  They  say  there  are  but  two  ways  —  one 
is  to  hire  men  and  to  allure  them  to  labor  by 
their  consent;  the  other  is  to  buy  the  men  and 
drive  them  to  it,  and  that  is  slavery.  Having 
assumed  that,  they  proceed  to  discuss  the 
question  of  whether  the  laborers  themselves 
are  better  off  in  the  condition  of  slaves  or  of 
hired  laborers,  and  they  usually  decide  that 
they  are  better  off  in  the  condition  of  slaves. 

In  the  first  place,  I  say  that  the  whole  thing 
is  a  mistake.  That  there  is  a  certain  relation 
between  capital  and  labor,  I  admit.  That  it 
does  exist,  and  rightfully  exists,  I  think  is  true. 
That  men  who  are  industrious  and  sober  and 
honest  in  the  pursuit  of  their  own  interests 
should  after  a  while  accumulate  capital,  and 
after  that  should  be  allowed  to  enjoy  it  in 
peace,  and  also  if  they  should  choose,  when 
they  have  accumulated  it,  to  use  it  to  save 
themselves  from  actual  labor,  and  hire  other 
people  to  labor  for  them,  is  right.  In  doing 
so,  they  do  not  wrong  the  man  they  employ, 
for  they  find  men,  who  have  not  their  own 
land  to  work  upon,  or  shops  to  work  in,  and 
who  are  benefited  by  working  for  others  — 
hired  laborers,  receiving  their  capital  for  it. 
Thus  a  few  men  that  own  capital  hire  a  few 
others,  and  these  establish  the  relation  of 
capital  and  labor  rightfully  —  a  relation  of 
which  I  make  no  complaint.  But  I  insist  that 
that  relation,  after  all,  does  not  embrace  more 
than  one  eighth  of  the  labor  of  the  country. 


86 


We  must  have  a  national  policy  in  regard 
to  the  institution  of  slavery  that  acknowledges 
and  deals  with  that  institution  as  being  wrong. 
Whoever  desires  the  prevention  of  the  spread 
of  slavery  and  the  nationalization  of  that 
institution,  yields  all  when  he  yields  to  any 
policy  that  either  recognizes  slavery  as  being 
right,  or  as  being  an  indifferent  thing.  Noth- 
ing will  make  you  successful  but  setting  up  a 
policy  which  shall  treat  the  thing  as  being 
wrong.  When  I  say  this,  I  do  not  mean  to 
say  that  this  General  Government  is  charged 
with  the  duty  of  redressing  or  preventing  all 
the  wrongs  in  the  world;  but  I  do  think  that 
it  is  charged  with  preventing  and  redressing 
all  wrongs  which  are  wrongs  to  itself.  This 
government  is  expressly  charged  with  the 
duty  of  providing  for  the  general  welfare.  We 
believe  that  the  spreading  out  and  perpetuity 
of  the  institution  of  slavery  impairs  the  gen- 
eral welfare.  We  believe  —  nay,  we  know  — 
that  that  is  the  only  thing  that  has  ever  threat- 
ened the  perpetuity  of  the  Union  itself.  The 
only  thing  which  has  ever  menaced  the  de- 
struction of  the  government  under  which  we 
live,  is  this  very  thing.  To  repress  this 
thing,  we  think,  is  providing  for  the  general 
welfare.  .  .  . 

I  say  that  we  must  not  interfere  with  the 
institution  of  slavery  in  the  States  where  it 
exists,  because  the  Constitution  forbids  it,  and 
the  general  welfare  does  not  require  us  to 
do  so.  We  must  not  withhold  an  efficient 

87 


fugitive-slave  law,  because  the  Constitution 
requires  us,  as  I  understand  it,  not  to  withhold 
such  a  law.  But  we  must  prevent  the  out- 
spreading of  the  institution,  because  neither 
the  Constitution  nor  general  welfare  requires 
us  to  extend  it.  We  must  prevent  the  revival 
of  the  African  slave-trade,  and  the  enacting 
by  Congress  of  a  territorial  slave-code.  We 
must  prevent  each  of  these  things  being  done 
by  either  congresses  or  courts.  The  people 
of  these  United  States  are  the  rightful  masters 
of  both  congresses  and  courts,  not  to  over- 
throw the  Constitution,  but  to  overthrow  the 
men  who  pervert  the  Constitution. 

To  do  these  things  we  must  employ  instru- 
mentalities. We  must  hold  conventions;  we 
must  adopt  platforms,  if  we  conform  to  ordi- 
nary custom;  we  must  nominate  candidates; 
and  we  must  carry  elections.  ...  I  should 
be  glad  to  have  some  of  the  many  good  and 
able  and  noble  men  of  the  South  to  place 
themselves  where  we  can  confer  upon  them 
the  high  honor  of  an  election  upon  one  or  the 
other  end  of  our  ticket.  It  would  do  my  soul 
good  to  do  that  thing.  It  would  enable  us  to 
teach  them  that,  inasmuch  as  we  select  one  of 
their  own  number  to  carry  out  our  principles, 
we  are  free  from  the  charge  that  we  mean 
more  than  we  say.  —  Speech  at  Cincinnati; 
September  17,  1859. 


FROM  the  first  appearance  of  man  upon 
the  earth  down  to  very  recent  times, 
the  words  "stranger"  and  "enemy"  were 
quite  or  almost  synonymous.  Long  after 
civilized  nations  had  defined  robbery  and 
murder  as  high  crimes,  and  had  affixed  severe 
punishments  to  them,  when  practiced  among 
and  upon  their  own  people  respectively,  it 
was  deemed  no  offense,  but  even  meritorious, 
to  rob  and  murder  and  enslave  strangers, 
whether  as  nations  or  as  individuals.  Even 
yet,  this  has  not  totally  disappeared.  The 
man  of  the  highest  moral  cultivation,  in  spite 
of  all  which  abstract  principle  can  do,  likes 
him  whom  he  does  know  much  better  than 
him  whom  he  does  not  know.  To  correct  the 
evils,  great  and  small,  which  spring  from 
want  of  sympathy  and  from  positive  enmity 
among  strangers,  as  nations  or  as  individuals, 
is  one  of  the  highest  functions  of  civilization. 
To  this  end  our  agricultural  fairs  contribute 
in  no  small  degree.  They  render  more  pleas- 
ant, and  more  strong,  and  more  durable  the 
bond  of  social  and  political  union  among  us. 

The  effect  of  thorough  cultivation  upon  the 
farmer's  own  mind,  and  in  reaction  through 
his  mind  back  upon  his  business,  is  perhaps 
quite  equal  to  any  other  of  its  effects.  Every 
man  is  proud  of  what  he  does  well,  and  no 
man  is  proud  of  that  he  does  not  well.  With 
the  former  his  heart  is  in  his  work,  and  he  will 
do  twice  as  much  of  it  with  less  fatigue;  the 
89 


latter  he  performs  a  little  imperfectly,  looks 
at  it  in  disgust,  turns  from  it,  and  imagines 
himself  exceedingly  tired  —  the  little  he  has 
done  comes  to  nothing  for  want  of  finishing. 

The  world  is  agreed  that  labor  is  the  source 
from  which  human  wants  are  mainly  supplied. 
There  is  no  dispute  upon  this  point.  From 
this  point,  however,  men  immediately  diverge. 
Much  disputation  is  maintained  as  to  the  best 
way  of  applying  and  controlling  the  labor 
element.  By  some  it  is  assumed  that  labor 
is  available  only  in  connection  with  capital  — 
that  nobody  labors,  unless  somebody  else 
owning  capital,  somehow,  by  the  use  of  it, 
induces  him  to  do  it.  Having  assumed  this, 
they  proceed  to  consider  whether  it  is  best 
that  capital  shall  hire  laborers,  and  thus  in- 
duce them  to  work  by  their  own  consent,  or 
buy  them,  and  drive  them  to  it,  without  their 
consent.  Having  proceeded  so  far,  they  nat- 
urally conclude  that  all  laborers  are  naturally 
either  hired  laborers  or  slaves.  They  further 
assume  that  whoever  is  once  a  hired  laborer, 
is  fatally  fixed  in  that  condition  for  life;  and 
thence  again,  that  his  condition  is  as  bad  as, 
or  worse  than,  that  of  a  slave.  This  is  the 
"mud-sill"  theory.1  But  another  class  of 
reasoners  hold  the  opinion  that  there  is  no 

1  Enunciated  by  James  H.  Hammond,  Senator  from 
South  Carolina,  1857  to  1861.  In  a  speech  in  the  Senate 
he  said  that  cultivated  society  necessarily  rested  on  an 
inferior  class,  that  of  labor,  just  as  a  house  stood  on  mud- 
sills :  that  is,  sills  lying  directly  on  the  ground. 

90 


such  relation  between  capital  and  labor  as 
assumed;  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  a  free 
man  being  fatally  fixed  for  life  in  the  condition 
of  a  hired  laborer;  that  both  these  assump- 
tions are  false,  and  all  inferences  from  them 
groundless.  They  hold  that  labor  is  prior  to, 
and  independent  of,  capital;  that,  in  fact, 
capital  is  the  fruit  of  labor,  and  could  never 
have  existed  if  labor  had  not  first  existed; 
that  labor  can  exist  without  capital,  but  that 
capital  could  never  have  existed  without 
labor.  Hence  they  hold  that  labor  is  the 
superior  —  greatly  the  superior  —  of  capital. 
They  do  not  deny  that  there  is,  and  prob- 
ably always  will  be,  a  relation  between  labor 
and  capital.  The  error,  as  they  hold,  is  in 
assuming  that  the  whole  labor  of  the  world 
exists  within  that  relation.  A  few  men  own 
capital ;  and  that  few  avoid  labor  themselves, 
and  with  their  capital  hire  or  buy  another  few 
to  labor  for  them.  A  large  majority  belong 
to  neither  class  —  neither  work  for  others, 
nor  have  others  working  for  them.  Even  in 
all  our  slave  States  except  South  Carolina,  a 
majority  of  the  whole  people  of  all  colors  are 
neither  slaves  nor  masters.  In  these  free 
States,  a  large  majority  are  neither  hirers  nor 
hired.  Men,  with  their  families  —  wives, 
sons,  and  daughters  —  work  for  themselves, 
on  their  farms,  in  their  houses,  and  in  their 
shops,  taking  the  whole  product  to  themselves, 
and  asking  no  favors  of  capital  on  the  one 
hand,  nor  of  hirelings  or  slaves  on  the  other. 

91 


It  is  not  forgotten  that  a  considerable  number 
of  persons  mingle  their  own  labor  with  capi- 
tal —  that  is,  labor  with  their  own  hands,  and 
also  buy  slaves  or  hire  free  men  to  labor  for 
them;  but  this  is  only  a  mixed,  and  not  a 
distinct,  class.  No  principle  stated  is  dis- 
turbed by  the  existence  of  this  mixed  class. 
Again,  as  has  already  been  said,  the  oppo- 
nents of  the  "mud-sill"  theory  insist  that 
there  is  not,  of  necessity,  any  such  thing  as 
the  free  hired  laborer  being  fixed  to  that  con- 
dition for  life.  There  is  demonstration  for 
saying  this.  Many  independent  men  in  this 
assembly  doubtless  a  few  years  ago  were 
hired  laborers.  And  their  case  is  almost,  if 
not  quite,  the  general  rule. 

The  prudent,  penniless  beginner  in  the 
world  labors  for  wages  awhile,  saves  a  sur- 
plus with  which  to  buy  tools  or  land  for  him- 
self, then  labors  on  his  own  account  another 
while,  and  at  length  hires  another  new  begin- 
ner to  help  him.  This,  say  its  advocates,  is 
free  labor  —  the  just,  and  generous,  and 
prosperous  system,  which  opens  the  way  for 
all,  gives  hope  to  all,  and  energy,  and  prog- 
ress, and  improvement  of  condition  to  all. 
If  any  continue  through  life  in  the  condition 
of  the  hired  laborer,  it  is  not  the  fault  of  the 
system,  but  because  of  either  a  dependent 
nature  which  prefers  it,  or  improvidence, 
folly,  or  singular  misfortune.  I  have  said  this 
much  about  the  elements  of  labor  generally, 
as  introductory  to  the  consideration  of  a  new 
92 


phase  which  that  element  is  in  process  of 
assuming.  The  old  general  rule  was  that 
educated  people  did  not  perform  manual 
labor.  They  managed  to  eat  their  bread,  leav- 
ing the  toil  of  producing  it  to  the  uneducated. 
This  was  not  an  insupportable  evil  to  the 
working  bees,  so  long  as  the  class  of  drones 
remained  very  small.  But  now,  especially  in 
these  free  States,  nearly  all  are  educated  — 
quite  too  nearly  all  to  leave  the  labor  of  the 
uneducated  in  any  wise  adequate  to  the  sup- 
port of  the  whole.  It  follows  from  this  that 
henceforth  educated  people  must  labor. 
Otherwise,  education  itself  would  become  a 
positive  and  intolerable  evil.  No  country  can 
sustain  in  idleness  more  than  a  small  per- 
centage of  its  numbers.  The  great  majority 
must  labor  at  something  productive.  From 
these  premises  the  problem  springs,  ''How 
can  labor  and  education  be  the  most  satis- 
factorily combined?" 

By  the  "mud-sill"  theory  it  is  assumed  that 
labor  and  education  are  incompatible,  and 
any  practical  combination  of  them  impossible. 
According  to  that  theory,  a  blind  horse  upon 
a  tread-mill  is  a  perfect  illustration  of  what  a 
laborer  should  be  —  all  the  better  for  being 
blind,  that  he  could  not  kick  understandingly. 
According  to  that  theory,  the  education  of 
laborers  is  not  only  useless  but  pernicious  and 
dangerous.  In  fact,  it  is,  in  some  sort,  deemed 
a  misfortune  that  laborers  should  have  heads 
at  all.  Those  same  heads  are  regarded  as 

93 


explosive  materials,  only  to  be  safely  kept  irr 
damp  places,  as  far  as  possible  from  that 
peculiar  sort  of  fire  which  ignites  them.  A 
Yankee  who  could  invent  a  strong-handed 
man  without  a  head  would  receive  the  ever- 
lasting gratitude  of  the  "mud-sill"  advocates. 
But  free  labor  says,  "No."  Free  labor 
argues  that  as  the  Author  of  man  makes  every 
individual  with  one  head  and  one  pair  of 
hands,  it  was  probably  intended  that  heads 
and  hands  should  co-operate  as  friends,  and 
that  that  particular  head  should  direct  and 
control  that  pair  of  hands.  As  each  man  has 
one  mouth  to  be  fed,  and  one  pair  of  hands  to 
furnish  food,  it  was  probably  intended  that 
that  particular  pair  of  hands  should  feed  that 
particular  mouth  —  that  each  head  is  the 
natural  guardian,  director,  and  protector  of 
the  hands  and  mouth  inseparably  connected 
with  it ;  and  that  being  so,  every  head  should 
be  cultivated  and  improved  by  whatever  will 
add  to  its  capacity  for  performing  its  charge. 
In  one  word,  free  labor  insists  on  universal 
education. 

Erelong  the  most  valuable  of  all  arts  will 
be  the  art  of  deriving  a  comfortable  subsist- 
ence from  the  smallest  area  of  soil.  No  com- 
munity whose  every  member  possesses  this 
art,  can  ever  be  the  victim  of  oppression  in 
any  of  its  forms.  Such  community  will  be 
alike  independent  of  crowned  kings,  money 
kings,  and  land  kings. 
94 


It  is  said  an  Eastern  monarch  once  charged 
his  wise  men  to  invent  him  a  sentence  to  be 
ever  in  view,  and  which  should  be  true  and 
appropriate  in  all  times  and  situations.  They 
presented  him  the  words,  "And  this,  too, 
shall  pass  away."  How  much  it  expresses! 
How  chastening  in  the  hour  of  pride!  How 
consoling  in  the  depths  of  affliction!  "And 
this,  too,  shall  pass  away."  And  yet,  let  us 
hope,  it  is  not  quite  true.  Let  us  hope,  rather, 
that  by  the  best  cultivation  of  the  physical 
world  beneath  and  around  us,  and  the  intel- 
lectual and  moral  world  within  us,  we  shall 
secure  an  individual,  social,  and  political  pros- 
perity and  happiness,  whose  course  shall  be 
onward  and  upward,  and  which,  while  the 
earth  endures,  shall  not  pass  away.  —  Ad- 
dress at  Wisconsin  State  Agricultural  Fair; 
September  30,  1859. 


BUT  you  Democrats  are  for  the  Union;  and 
you  greatly  fear  the  success  of  the  Repub- 
licans would  destroy  the  Union.  Why?  Do 
the  Republicans  declare  against  the  Union? 
nothing  like  it.  Your  own  statement  of  it 
is  that  if  the  Black  Republicans  elect  a  Presi- 
dent, you  "won't  stand  it."  You  will  break 
up  the  Union.  If  we  shall  constitutionally 
elect  a  President,  it  will  be  our  duty  to  see 
that  you  submit.  Old  John  Brown  has  been 
executed  for  treason  against  a  State.  We 

95 


cannot  object,  even  though  he  agreed  with 
us  in  thinking  slavery  wrong.  That  cannot 
excuse  violence,  bloodshed,  and  treason.  It 
could  avail  him  nothing  that  he  might  think 
himself  right.  So,  if  we  constitutionally  elect 
a  President,  and  therefore  you  undertake  to 
destroy  the  Union,  it  will  be  our  duty  to  deal 
with  you  as  old  John  Brown  has  been  dealt 
with.  We  shall  try  to  do  our  duty.  We  hope 
and  believe  that  in  no  section  will  a  majority 
so  act  as  to  render  such  extreme  measures 
necessary.  —  Speech  at  Leaven-worth,  Kan. ; 
December  5,  1859. 


AS  Plato  had  for  the  immortality  of  the 
soul,  so  Young  America  has  "a  pleasing 
hope,  a  fond  desire  —  a  longing  after"  ter- 
ritory. He  has  a  great  passion  —  a  perfect 
rage  —  for  the  new  ;  particularly  new  men 
for  office,  and  the  new  earth  mentioned  in  the 
Revelations,  in  which,  being  no  more  sea, 
there  must  be  about  three  times  as  much  land 
as  in  the  present.  He  is  a  great  friend  of 
humanity;  and  his  desire  for  land  is  not  self- 
ish, but  merely  an  impulse  to  extend  the  area 
of  freedom.  He  is  very  anxious  to  fight  for 
the  liberation  of  enslaved  nations  and  colo- 
nies, provided,  always,  they  have  land,  and 
have  not  any  liking  for  his  interference.  As 
to  those  who  have  no  land,  and  would  be  glad 
of  help  from  any  quarter,  he  considers  they 
can  afford  to  wait  a  few  hundred  years  longer. 
96 


In  knowledge  he  is  particularly  rich.  He 
knows  all  that  can  possibly  be  known;  in- 
clines to  believe  in  spiritual  rappings,  and  is 
the  unquestioned  inventor  of  "Manifest  Des- 
tiny." His  horror  is  for  all  that  is  old,  particu- 
larly "Old  Fogy";  and  if  there  be  anything 
old  which  he  can  endure,  it  is  only  old  whisky 
and  old  tobacco. 

If  the  said  Young  America  really  is,  as  he 
claims  to  be,  the  owner  of  all  present,  it  must 
be  admitted  that  he  has  considerable  advan- 
tage of  Old  Fogy.  Take,  for  instance,  the 
first  of  all  fogies,  Father  Adam.  There  he 
stood,  a  very  perfect  physical  man,  as  poets 
and  painters  inform  us;  but  he  must  have 
been  very  ignorant,  and  simple  in  his  habits. 
He  had  had  no  sufficient  time  to  learn  much 
by  observation,  and  he  had  no  near  neighbors 
to  teach  him  anything.  No  part  of  his  break- 
fast had  been  brought  from  the  other  side  of 
the  world ;  and  it  is  quite  probable  he  had  no 
conception  of  the  world  having  any  other  side. 
In  all  these  things,  it  is  very  plain,  he  was  no 
equal  of  Young  America;  the  most  that  can 
be  said  is,  that  according  to  his  chance  he 
may  have  been  quite  as  much  of  a  man  as  his 
very  self-complacent  descendant.  Little  as 
was  what  he  knew,  let  the  youngster  discard 
all  he  has  learned  from  others,  and  then  show, 
if  he  can,  any  advantage  on  his  side.  In  the 
way  of  land  and  live-stock,  Adam  was  quite 
in  the  ascendant.  He  had  dominion  over  all 
the  earth,  and  all  the  living  things  upon  and 

7  97 


round  about  it.  The  land  has  been  sadly 
divided  out  since;  but  never  fret,  Young 
America  will  re-annex  it. 

The  great  difference  between  Young  Amer- 
ica and  Old  Fogy  is  the  result  of  discoveries, 
inventions,  and  improvements  These,  in 
turn,  are  the  result  of  observation,  reflection, 
and  experiment.  .  .  .  All  nature  —  the  whole 
world,  material,  moral,  and  intellectual  —  is 
a  mine;  and  in  Adam's  day  it  was  a  wholly 
unexplored  mine.  Now,  it  was  the  destined 
work  of  Adam's  race  to  develop,  by  discov- 
eries, inventions,  and  improvements,  the  hid- 
den treasures  of  this  mine.  But  Adam  had 
nothing  to  turn  his  attention  to  the  work. 
If  he  should  do  anything  in  the  way  of  in- 
ventions, he  had  first  to  invent  the  art  of 
invention,  the  instance,  at  least,  if  not  the 
habit,  of  observation  and  reflection.  As 
might  be  expected,  he  seems  not  to  have 
been  a  very  observing  man  at  first;  for  it 
appears  he  went  about  naked  a  considerable 
length  of  time  before  he  ever  noticed  that 
obvious  fact.  But  when  he  did  observe  it, 
the  observation  was  not  lost  upon  him;  for 
it  immediately  led  to  the  first  of  all  inventions 
of  which  we  have  any  direct  account  —  the 
fig-leaf  apron. 

The  inclination  to  exchange  thoughts  with 
one  another  is  probably  an  original  impulse 
of  our  nature.  If  I  be  in  pain,  I  wish  to  let 
you  know  it,  and  to  ask  your  sympathy  and 
assistance;  and  my  pleasurable  emotions  also 
98 


I  wish  to  communicate  to  and  share  with  you. 
But  to  carry  on  such  communications,  some 
instrumentality  is  indispensable.  Accord- 
ingly, speech  —  articulate  sounds  rattled  off 
from  the  tongue  —  was  used  by  our  first 
parents,  and  even  by  Adam  before  the  crea- 
tion of  Eve.  He  gave  names  to  the  animals 
while  she  was  still  a  bone  in  his  side;  and  he 
broke  out  quite  volubly  when  she  first  stood 
before  him,  the  best  present  of  his  Maker. 
From  this  it  would  appear  that  speech  was  not 
an  invention  of  man,  but  rather  the  direct  gift 
of  his  Creator.  But  whether  divine  gift  or  in- 
vention, it  is  still  plain  that  if  a  mode  of  com- 
munication had  been  left  to  invention,  speech 
must  have  been  the  first,  from  the  superior 
adaptation  to  the  end  of  the  organs  of  speech 
over  every  other  means  within  the  whole  range 
of  nature.  .  .  . 

Speech,  then,  by  enabling  different  individ- 
uals to  interchange  thoughts,  and  thereby  to 
combine  their  powers  of  observation  and  re- 
flection, greatly  facilitates  useful  discoveries 
and  inventions.  .  .  .  And  this  reminds  me 
of  what  I  passed  unnoticed  before,  that  the 
very  first  invention  was  a  joint  operation,  Eve 
having  shared  with  Adam  the  getting  up  of 
the  apron.  And,  indeed,  judging  from  the 
fact  that  sewing  has  come  down  to  our  times 
as  "woman's  work,"  it  is  very  probable  she 
took  the  leading  part,  —  he,  perhaps,  doing 
no  more  than  to  stand  by  and  thread  the 
needle.  That  proceeding  may  be  reckoned 

99 


as  the  mother  of  all  "sewing-societies,"  and 
the  first  and  most  perfect  "World's  Fair," 
all  inventions  and  all  inventors  then  in  the 
world  being  on  the  spot.  .  .  . 

But  speech  alone,  valuable  as  it  ever  has 
been  and  is,  has  not  advanced  the  condition 
of  the  world  much.  This  is  abundantly  evi- 
dent when  we  look  at  the  degraded  condition 
of  all  those  tribes  of  human  creatures  who 
have  no  considerable  additional  means  of 
communicating  thoughts.  Writing,  the  art  of 
communicating  thoughts  to  the  mind  through 
the  eye,  is  the  great  invention  of  the  world. 
Great  is  the  astonishing  range  of  analysis  and 
combination  which  necessarily  underlies  the 
most  crude  and  general  conception  of  it  — 
great,  very  great,  in  enabling  us  to  converse 
with  the  dead,  the  absent,  and  the  unborn, 
at  all  distances  of  time  and  space ;  and  great, 
not  only  in  its  direct  benefits,  but  greatest  help 
to  all  other  inventions.  .  .  .  The  precise 
period  at  which  writing  was  invented  is  not 
known,  but  it  certainly  was  as  early  as  the 
time  of  Moses;  from  which  we  may  safely 
infer  that  its  inventors  were  very  old 
fogies.  .  .  . 

When  we  remember  that  words  are  sounds 
merely,  we  shall  conclude  that  the  idea  of 
representing  those  sounds  by  marks,  so  that 
whoever  should  at  any  time  after  see  the 
marks  would  understand  what  sounds  they 
meant,  was  a  bold  and  ingenious  conception, 
not  likely  to  occur  to  one  man  in  a  million  in 
100 


the  run  of  a  thousand  years.  And  when  it 
did  occur,  a  distinct  mark  for  each  word,  giv- 
ing twenty  thousand  different  marks  first  to 
be  learned,  and  afterward  to  be  remembered, 
would  follow  as  the  second  thought,  and 
would  present  such  a  difficulty  as  would  lead 
to  the  conclusion  that  the  whole  thing  was 
impracticable.  But  the  necessity  still  would 
exist;  and  we  may  readily  suppose  that  the 
idea  was  conceived,  and  lost,  and  reproduced, 
and  dropped,  and  taken  up  again  and  again, 
until  at  last  the  thought  of  dividing  sounds 
into  parts,  and  making  a  mark,  not  to  repre- 
sent a  whole  sound,  but  only  a  part  of  one, 
and  then  of  combining  those  marks,  not  very 
many  in  number,  upon  principles  of  permu- 
tation, so  as  to  represent  any  and  all  of  the 
whole  twenty  thousand  words,  and  even  any 
additional  number,  was  somehow  conceived 
and  pushed  into  practice.  This  was  the  in- 
vention of  phonetic  writing,  as  distinguished 
from  the  clumsy  picture-writing  of  some  of 
the  nations.  That  it  was  difficult  of  concep- 
tion and  execution  is  apparent,  as  well  by  the 
foregoing  reflection,  as  the  fact  that  so  many 
tribes  of  men  have  come  down  from  Adam's 
time  to  our  own  without  ever  having  possessed 
it.  Its  utility  may  be  conceived  by  the  reflec- 
tion that  to  it  we  owe  everything  which  dis- 
tinguishes us  from  savages.  Take  it  from  us, 
and  the  Bible,  all  history,  all  science,  all  gov- 
ernment, all  commerce,  and  nearly  all  social 
intercourse  go  with  it.  ... 
101 


Printing  came  in  1436,  or  nearly  three 
thousand  years  after  writing.  ...  It  is  but 
the  other  half,  and  in  reality  the  better  half, 
of  writing;  and  .  .  .  both  together  are  but 
the  assistants  of  speech  in  the  communication 
of  thoughts  between  man  and  man.  When 
man  was  possessed  of  speech  alone,  the  chances 
of  invention,  discovery,  and  improvement 
were  very  limited;  but  by  the  introduction  of 
each  of  these  they  were  greatly  multiplied. 
When  writing  was  invented,  any  important 
observation  likely  to  lead  to  a  discovery  had 
at  least  a  chance  of  being  written  down,  and 
consequently  a  little  chance  of  never  being 
forgotten,  and  of  being  seen  and  reflected 
upon  by  a  much  greater  number  of  persons; 
and  thereby  the  chances  of  a  valuable  hint 
being  caught  proportionately  augmented.  By 
this  means  the  observation  of  a  single  indi- 
vidual might  lead  to  an  important  invention 
years,  and  even  centuries,  after  he  was  dead. 
In  one  word,  by  means  of  writing,  the  seeds 
of  invention  were  more  permanently  pre- 
served and  more  widely  sown.  And  yet  for 
three  thousand  years  during  which  printing 
remained  undiscovered  after  writing  was  in 
use,  it  was  only  a  small  portion  of  the  people 
who  could  write,  or  read  writing;  and  con- 
sequently the  field  of  invention,  though  much 
extended,  still  continued  very  limited.  At 
length  printing  came.  It  gave  ten  thousand 
copies  of  any  written  matter  quite  as  cheaply 
as  ten  were  given  before;  and  consequently 
102 


a  thousand  minds  were  brought  into  the  field 
where  there  was  but  one  before.  This  was 
a  great  gain  —  and  history  shows  a  great 
change  corresponding  to  it  —  in  point  of 
time. 

I  will  venture  to  consider  it  the  true  termi- 
nation of  that  period  called  "the  dark  ages." 
Discoveries,  inventions,  and  improvements 
followed  rapidly,  and  have  been  increasing 
their  rapidity  ever  since.  The  effects  could 
not  come  all  at  once.  It  required  time  to 
bring  them  out;  and  they  are  still  coming. 
The  capacity  to  read  could  not  be  multiplied 
as  fast  as  the  means  of  reading.  Spelling- 
books  just  began  to  go  into  the  hands  of  the 
children,  but  ihe  teachers  were  not  very  nu- 
merous or  very  competent,  so  that  it  is  safe  to 
infer  they  did  not  advance  so  speedily  as  they 
do  nowadays.  It  is  very  probable  —  almost 
certain  —  that  the  great  mass  of  men  at  that 
time  were  utterly  unconscious  that  their  con- 
dition or  their  minds  were  capable  of  improve- 
ment. They  not  only  looked  upon  the 
educated  few  as  superior  beings,  but  they 
supposed  themselves  to  be  naturally  inca- 
pable of  rising  to  equality.  To  emancipate  the 
mind  from  this  false  underestimate  of  itself 
is  the  great  task  which  printing  came  into 
the  world  to  perform.  It  is  difficult  for  us  now 
and  here  to  conceive  how  strong  this  slavery 
of  the  mind  was,  and  how  long  it  did  of  neces- 
sity take  to  break  its  shackles,  and  to  get  a 
habit  of  freedom  of  thought  established.  It 
103 


is,  in  this  connection,  a  curious  fact  that  a 
new  country  is  most  favorable  —  almost 
necessary  —  to  the  emancipation  of  thought, 
and  the  consequent  advancement  of  civiliza- 
tion and  the  arts.  ...  In  anciently  inhabited 
countries,  the  dust  of  ages  —  a  real,  down- 
right old-fogyism  —  seems  to  settle  upon  and 
smother  the  intellect  and  energies  of  man.  It 
is  in  this  view  that  I  have  mentioned  the  dis- 
covery of  America  as  an  event  greatly  favor- 
ing and  facilitating  useful  discoveries  and 
inventions.  Next  came  the  patent  laws. 
These  began  in  England  in  1624,  and  in  this 
country  with  the  adoption  of  our  Constitution. 
Before  then  any  man  [might]  instantly  use 
what  another  man  had  invented,  so  that  the 
inventor  had  no  special  advantage  from  his 
invention.  The  patent  system  changed  this, 
secured  to  the  inventor  for  a  limited  time  ex- 
clusive use  of  his  inventions,  and  thereby 
added  the  fuel  of  interest  to  the  fire  of  genius 
in  the  discovery  and  production  of  new  and 
useful  things.  —  Lecture  on  "Discoveries,  In- 
ventions, and  Improvements"  beforethe  Spring- 
field (III.)  Library  Association;  February  22, 
1860. 


AND  now,  if  they  would  listen,  —  as  I  sup- 
pose they  will  not,  —  I  would  address  a 
few  words  to  the  Southern  people.  .  .  . 

You  say  we  are  sectional.     We  deny  it. 
That  makes  an  issue;    and  the  burden  of 
104 


proof  is  upon  you.  You  produce  your  proof; 
and  what  is  it?  Why,  that  our  party  has  no 
existence  in  your  section  —  gets  no  votes  in 
your  section.  The  fact  is  substantially  true; 
but  does  it  prove  the  issue?  If  it  does,  then 
in  case  we  should,  without  change  of  principle, 
begin  to  get  votes  in  your  section,  we  should 
thereby  cease  to  be  sectional.  You  cannot 
escape  this  conclusion;  and  yet,  are  you  will- 
ing to  abide  by  it?  ... 

The  fact  that  we  get  no  votes  in  your  sec- 
tion is  a  fact  of  your  making,  and  not  of  ours. 
And  if  there  be  fault  in  that  fact,  that  fault  is 
primarily  yours,  and  remains  so  until  you 
show  that  we  repel  you  by  some  wrong  prin- 
ciple or  practice.  If  we  do  repel  you  by  any 
wrong  principle  or  practice,  the  fault  is  ours; 
but  this  brings  you  to  where  you  ought  to  have 
started  —  to  a  discussion  of  the  right  or  wrong 
of  our  principle.  If  our  principle,  put  in 
practice,  would  wrong  your  section  for  the 
benefit  of  ours,  or  for  any  other  object,  then 
our  principle,  and  we  with  it,  are  sectional, 
and  are  justly  opposed  and  denounced  as  such. 
Meet  us,  then,  on  the  question  of  whether 
our  principle,  put  in  practice,  would  wrong 
your  section ;  and  so  meet  us  as  if  it  were  pos- 
sible that  something  may  be  said  on  our  side. 
Do  you  accept  the  challenge  ?  No !  Then 
you  really  believe  that  the  principle  which 
"  our  fathers  who  framed  the  government 
under  which  we  live"  thought  so  clearly  right 
as  to  adopt  it,  and  indorse  it  again  and  again, 


upon  their  official  oaths,  is  in  fact  so  clearly 
wrong  as  to  demand  your  condemnation  with- 
out a  moment's  consideration.  .  .  . 

Again,  you  say  we  have  made  the  slavery 
question  more  prominent  than  it  formerly  was. 
We  deny  it.  We  admit  that  it  is  more  promi- 
nent, but  we  deny  that  we  made  it  so.  It  was 
not  we,  but  you,  who  discarded  the  old  policy 
of  the  fathers.  We  resisted,  and  still  resist, 
your  innovation;  and  thence  comes  the 
greater  prominence  of  the  question.  Would 
you  have  that  question  reduced  to  its  former 
proportions?  Go  back  to  that  old  policy. 
What  has  been  will  be  again,  under  the  same 
conditions.  If  you  would  have  the  peace  of 
the  old  times,  readopt  the  precepts  and  policy 
of  the  old  times.  .  .  . 

But  you  will  break  up  the  Union  rather 
than  submit  to  a  denial  of  your  constitutional 
rights. 

That  has  a  somewhat  reckless  sound;  but 
it  would  be  palliated,  if  not  fully  justified, 
were  we  proposing,  by  the  mere  force  of  num- 
bers, to  deprive  you  of  some  right  plainly 
written  down  in  the  Constitution.  But  we 
are  proposing  no  such  thing. 

When  you  make  these  declarations  you 
have  a  specific  and  well-understood  allusion 
to  an  assumed  constitutional  right  of  yours 
to  take  slaves  into  the  Federal  Territories, 
and  to  hold  them  there  as  property.  But  no 
such  right  is  specifically  written  in  the  Con- 
stitution. That  instrument  is  literally  silent 
106 


about  any  such  right.  We,  on  the  contrary, 
deny  that  such  a  right  has  any  existence  in 
the  Constitution,  even  by  implication. 

Your  purpose,  then,  plainly  stated,  is  that 
you  will  destroy  the  government,  unless  you 
be  allowed  to  construe  and  force  the  Consti- 
tution as  you  please,  on  all  points  in  dispute 
between  you  and  us.  You  will  rule  or  ruin 
in  all  events.  .  .  . 

But  you  will  not  abide  the  election  of  a 
Republican  president !  In  that  supposed 
event,  you  say,  you  will  destroy  the  Union; 
and  then,  you  say,  the  great  crime  of  having 
destroyed  it  will  be  upon  us !  That  is  cool. 
A  highwayman  holds  a  pistol  to  my  ear,  and 
mutters  through  his  teeth,  "Stand  and  de- 
liver, or  I  shall  kill  you,  and  then  you  will  be 
a  murderer ! " 

Wrong  as  we  think  slaver)7  is,  we  can  yet 
afford  to  let  it  alone  where  it  is,  because  that 
much  is  due  to  the  necessity  arising  from  its 
actual  presence  in  the  nation;  but  can  we, 
while  our  votes  will  prevent  it,  allow  it  to 
spread  into  the  national  Territories  and  to 
overrun  us  here  in  these  free  States? 

If  our  sense  of  duty  forbids  this,  then  let  us 
stand  by  our  duty  fearlessly  and  effectively. 
Let  us  be  diverted  by  none  of  those  sophistical 
contrivances  wherewith  we  are  so  industri- 
ously plied  and  belabored  —  contrivances 
such  as  groping  for  some  middle  ground  be- 
tween the  right  and  the  wrong;  vain  as  the 
107 


search  for  a  man  who  should  be  neither  a 
living  man  nor  a  dead  man ;  such  as  a  policy 
of  "don't  care"  on  a  question  about  which 
all  true  men  do- care;  such  as  Union  appeals 
beseeching  true  Union  men  to  yield  to  Dis- 
unionists,  reversing  the  divine  rule,  and  call- 
ing, not  the  sinners,  but  the  righteous  to  re- 
pentance; such  as  invocations  to  Washington, 
imploring  men  to  unsay  what  Washington 
said  and  undo  what  Washington  did. 

Neither  let  us  be  slandered  from  our  duty 
by  false  accusations  against  us,  nor  fright- 
ened from  it  by  menaces  of  destruction  to  the 
government,  nor  of  dungeons  to  ourselves. 
Let  us  have  faith  that  right  makes  might ;  and 
in  that  faith  let  us  to  the  end  dare  to  do  our 
duty  as  we  understand  it.  —  Speech  at  Cooper 
Union,  New  York;  February  27,  1860. 


ONE  SIXTH,  and  a  little  more,  of  the  pop- 
ulation of  the  United  States  are  slaves, 
looked  upon  as  property,  as  nothing  but  prop- 
erty. The  cash  value  of  these  slaves,  at  a 
moderate  estimate,  is  $2,000,000,000.  This 
amount  of  property  value  has  a  vast  influence 
on  the  minds  of  its  owners,  very  naturally. 
The  same  amount  of  property  would  have  an 
equal  influence  upon  us  if  owned  in  the  North. 
Human  nature  is  the  same  —  people  at  the 
South  are  the  same  as  those  at  the  North, 
barring  the  difference  in  circumstances.  Pub- 
lic opinion  is  founded,  to  a  great  extent,  on 
1 08 


a  property  basis.  What  lessens  the  value  of 
property  is  opposed;  what  enhances  its  value 
is  favored.  Public  opinion  at  the  South  re- 
gards slaves  as  property,  and  insists  upon 
treating  them  like  other  property. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  free  States  carry  on 
their  government  on  the  principle  of  the  equal- 
ity of  men.  We  think  slavery  is  morally 
wrong,  and  a  direct  violation  of  that  principle. 
We  all  think  it  wrong.  It  is  clearly  proved,  I 
think,  by  natural  theology,  apart  from  revela- 
tion. Every  man,  black,  white,  or  yellow,  has 
a  mouth  to  be  fed,  and  two  hands  with  which 
to  feed  it  —  and  bread  should  be  allowed  to 
go  to  that  mouth  without  controversy. 

Slavery  is  wrong  in  its  effect  upon  white 
people  and  free  labor.  It  is  the  only  thing 
that  threatens  the  Union.  It  makes  what 
Senator  Seward  has  been  much  abused  for 
calling  an  "irrepressible  conflict."  When 
they  get  ready  to  settle  it,  we  hope  they  will 
let  us  know.  Public  opinion  settles  every 
question  here;  any  policy  to  be  permanent 
must  have  public  opinion  at  the  bottom  — 
something  in  accordance  with  the  philosophy 
of  the  human  mind  as  it  is.  The  property 
basis  will  have  its  weight.  The  love  of  prop- 
erty and  a  consciousness  of  right  or  wrong 
have  conflicting  places  in  our  organization, 
which  often  make  a  man's  course  seem 
crooked,  his  conduct  a  riddle. 

Some  men  would  make  it  a  question  of  in- 
difference, neither  right  nor  wrong,  merely 
109 


a  question  of  dollars  and  cents;  —  the  AY. 
mighty  has  drawn  a  line  across  the  land,  be- 
low which  it  must  be  cultivated  by  slave  labor, 
above  which  by  free  labor.  They  would  say : 
"If  the  question  is  between  the  white  man 
and  the  negro,  I  am  for  the  white  man;  if 
between  the  negro  and  the  crocodile,  I  am  for 
the  negro."  There  is  a  strong  effort  to  make 
this  policy  of  indifference  prevail,  but  it  can- 
not be  a  durable  one.  A  "don't  care"  policy 
won't  prevail,  for  everybody  does  care.  .  .  . 

The  proposition  that  there  is  a  struggle  be- 
tween the  white  man  and  the  negro  contains 
a  falsehood.  There  is  no  struggle.  If  there 
was,  I  should  be  for  the  white  man.  If  two 
men  are  adrift  at  sea  on  a  plank  which  will 
bear  up  but  one,  the  law  justifies  either  in 
pushing  the  other  off.  I  never  had  to  struggle 
to  keep  a  negro  from  enslaving  me,  nor  did 
a  negro  ever  have  to  fight  to  keep  me  from 
enslaving  him.  .  .  . 

If  the  Republicans,  who  think  slavery  is 
wrong,  get  possession  of  the  General  Govern- 
ment, we  may  not  root  out  the  evil  at  once, 
but  may  at  least  prevent  its  extension.  If  I 
find  a  venomous  snake  lying  on  the  open 
prairie,  I  seize  the  first  stick  and  kill  him  at 
once;  but  if  that  snake  is  in  bed  with  my 
children,  I  must  be  more  cautious;  —  I  shall, 
in  striking  the  snake,  also  strike  the  children, 
or  arouse  the  reptile  to  bite  the  children. 
Slavery  is  the  venomous  snake  in  bed  with  the 
children.  But  if  the  question  is  whether  to 
HO 


kill  it  on  the  prairie  or  put  it  in  bed  with  the 
other  children,  I  am  inclined  to  think  we  'd 
kill  it. 

The  Democracy  are  given  to  bushwhack- 
ing. After  having  their  errors  and  misstate- 
ments  continually  thrust  in  their  faces,  they 
pay  no  heed,  but  go  on  howling  about  Seward 
and  the  "irrepressible  conflict."  That  is 
bushwhacking.  So  with  John  Brown  and 
Harper's  Ferry.  They  charge  it  upon  the 
Republican  party,  and  ignominiously  fail  in 
all  attempts  to  substantiate  the  charge.  Yet 
they  go  on  with  their  bushwhacking,  the  pack 
in  full  cry  after  John  Brown.  The  Democrats 
had  just  been  whipped  in  Ohio  and  Pennsyl- 
vania, and  seized  upon  the  unfortunate  Har- 
per's Ferry  affair  to  influence  other  elections 
then  pending.  They  said  to  each  other, 
"Jump  in;  now 's  your  chance";  and  were 
sorry  there  were  no  more  killed.  But  they 
did  n't  succeed  well.  Let  them  go  on  with 
their  howling.  They  will  succeed  when  by 
slandering  women  you  get  them  to  love  you, 
and  by  slandering  men  you  get  them  to  vote 
for  you.  —  Speech  at  Hartford,  Conn. ;  March 
5,  1860. 


NOW,  gentlemen,  the  Republicans  desire 
to  place  this  great  question  of  slavery 
on  the  very  basis  on  which  our  fathers  placed 
It  is  easy  to  demonstrate 
in 


that  "our  fathers  who  framed  this  govern- 
ment under  which  we  live  "  looked  on  slavery 
as  wrong,  and  so  framed  it  and  everything 
about  it  as  to  square  with  the  idea  that  it  was 
wrong,  so  far  as  the  necessities  arising  from 
its  existence  permitted.  In  forming  the  Con- 
stitution they  found  the  slave-trade  existing, 
capital  invested  in  it,  fields  depending  upon 
it  for  labor,  and  the  whole  system  resting 
upon  the  importation  of  slave  labor.  They 
therefore  did  not  prohibit  the  slave-trade  at 
once,  but  they  gave  the  power  to  prohibit  it 
after  twenty  years.  Why  was  this?  What 
other  foreign  trade  did  they  treat  in  that  way  ? 
Would  they  have  done  this  if  they  had  not 
thought  slavery  wrong? 

Another  thing  was  done  by  some  of  the 
same  men  who  framed  the  Constitution,  and 
afterward  adopted  as  their  own  act  by  the 
first  Congress  held  under  that  Constitution, 
of  which  many  of  the  framers  were  members 
—  they  prohibited  the  spread  of  slavery  in 
the  Territories.  Thus  the  same  men,  the 
framers  of  the  Constitution,  cut  off  the  supply 
and  prohibited  the  spread  of  slavery;  and 
both  acts  show  conclusively  that  .they  con- 
sidered that  the  thing  was  wrong. 

If  additional  proof  is  wanting,  it  can  be 
found  in  the  phraseology  of  the  Constitution. 
When  men  are  framing  a  supreme  law  and 
chart  of  government  to  secure  blessings  and 
prosperity  to  untold  generations  yet  to  come, 
.they  use  language  as  short  and  direct  and 

U2 


plain  as  can  be  found  to  express  their  mean- 
ing. In  all  matters  but  this  of  slavery  the 
framers  of  the  Constitution  used  the  very 
clearest,  shortest,  and  most  direct  language. 
But  the  Constitution  alludes  to  slavery  three 
times  without  mentioning  it  once !  The 
language  used  becomes  ambiguous,  round- 
about, and  mystical.  They  speak  of  the  "im- 
migration of  persons,"  and  mean  the  importa- 
tion of  slaves,  but  do  not  say  so.  In  estab- 
lishing a  basis  of  representation  they  say  "all 
other  persons,"  when  they  mean  to  say  slaves. 
Why  did  they  not  use  the  shortest  phrase? 
In  providing  for  the  return  of  fugitives  they 
say  "persons  held  to  service  or  labor."  If 
they  had  said  "slaves,"  it  would  have  been 
plainer  and  less  liable  to  misconstruction. 
Why  did  n't  they  do  it  ?  We  cannot  doubt 
that  it  was  done  on  purpose.  Only  one  reason 
is  possible,  and  that  is  supplied  us  by  one  of 
the  framers  of  the  Constitution  —  and  it  is 
not  possible  for  man  to  conceive  of  any  other. 
They  expected  and  desired  that  the  system 
would  come  to  an  end,  and  meant  that  when 
it  did  the  Constitution  should  not  show  that 
there  ever  had  been  a  slave  in  this  good  free 
country  of  ours. 

I  am  glad  to  see  that  a  system  of  labor  pre- 
vails in  New  England  under  which  laborers 
can  strike  when  they  want  to,  where  they  are 
not  obliged  to  work  under  all  circumstances, 
and  are  not  lied  down  and  obliged  to  labor 
8  113 


whether  you  pay  them  or  not !  I  like  the 
system  which  lets  a  man  quit  when  he  wants 
to,  and  wish  it  might  prevail  everywhere.  One 
of  the  reasons  why  I  am  opposed  to  slavery  is 
just  here.  What  is  the  true  condition  of  the 
laborer?  I  take  it  that  it  is  best  for  all  to 
leave  each  man  free  to  acquire  property  as 
fast  as  he  can.  Some  will  get  wealthy.  I 
don't  believe  in  a  law  to  prevent  a  man  from 
getting  rich;  it  would  do  more  harm  than 
good.  So  while  we  do  not  propose  any  war 
upon  capital,  we  do  wish  to  allow  the  hum- 
blest man  an  equal  chance  to  get  rich  with 
everybody  else.  When  one  starts  poor,  as 
most  do  in  the  race  of  life,  free  society  is  such 
that  he  knows  he  can  better  his  condition; 
he  knows  that  there  is  no  fixed  condition  of 
labor  for  his  whole  life.  I  am  not  ashamed 
to  confess  that  twenty-five  years  ago  I  was  a 
hired  laborer,  mauling  rails,  at  work  on  a 
flatboat  —  just  what  might  happen  to  any 
poor  man's  son.  I  want  every  man  to  have 
the  chance  —  and  I  believe  a  black  man  is 
entitled  to  it  —  in  which  he  can  better  his 
condition  —  when  he  may  look  forward  and 
hope  to  be  a  hired  laborer  this  year  and  the 
next,  work  for  himself  afterward,  and  finally 
to  hire  men  to  work  for  him.  That  is  the  true 
system.  Up  here  in  New  England  you  have 
a  soil  that  scarcely  sprouts  black-eyed  beans, 
and  yet  where  will  you  find  wealthy  men  so 
wealthy,  and  poverty  so  rarely  in  extremity? 
There  is  not  another  such  place  on  earth !  I 
114 


desire  that  if  you  get  too  thick  here,  and  find 
it  hard  to  better  your  condition  on  this  soil, 
you  may  have  a  chance  to  strike  out  and  go 
somewhere  else,  where  you  may  not  be  de- 
graded, nor  have  your  family  corrupted  by 
forced  rivalry  with  negro  slaves.  I  want  you 
to  have  a  clean  bed  and  no  snakes  in  it !  Then 
you  can  better  your  condition,  and  so  it  may 
go  on  and  on  in  one  ceaseless  round  so  long 
as  man  exists  on  the  face  of  the  earth.  — 
Speech  at  New  Haven;  March  6,  1860. 

I  HAVE  received  the  speech  and  book 
which  you  sent  me.  .  .  .  Both  seem  to  be 
well  written,  and  contain  many  things  with 
which  I  could  agree,  and  some  with  which  I 
could  not.  A  specimen  of  the  latter  is  the  dec- 
laration, in  the  closing  remarks  upon  the 
"speech,"  that  the  institution  is  a  "neces- 
sity" imposed  on  us  by  the  negro  race.  That 
the  going  many  thousand  miles,  seizing  a 
set  of  savages,  bringing  them  here,  and  mak- 
ing slaves  of  them  is  a  necessity  imposed  on 
us  by  them  involves  a  species  of  logic  to  which 
my  mind  will  scarcely  assent.  —  Letter  to 
C.  H.  Fisher;  August  27,  1860. 

I    APPRECIATE  your  motive  when  you 
suggest  the  propriety  of  my  writing  for 
the  public  something  disclaiming  all  intention 
to  interfere  with  slaves  or  slavery  in  the  States; 
but  in  my  judgment  it  would  do  no  good.    I 

"5 


have  already  done  this  many,  many  times; 
and  it  is  in  print,  and  open  to  all  who  will 
read.  Those  who  will  not  read  or  heed  what 
I  have  already  publicly  said  would  not  read 
or  heed  a  repetition  of  it.  "If  they  hear  not 
Moses  and  the  prophets,  neither  will  they  be 
persuaded  though  one  rose  from  the  dead." 
—  Letter  to  William  S.  Speer ;  October  23, 
1860. 

WHEN  the  people  rise  in  mass  in  behalf 
of  the  Union  and  the  liberties  of  this 
country,  truly  may  it  be  said,  "The  gates  of 
hell  cannot  prevail  against  them."  In  all 
trying  positions  in  which  I  shall  be  placed, 
and  doubtless  I  shall  be  placed  in  many  such, 
my  reliance  will  be  upon  you  and  the  people 
of  the  United  States;  and  I  wish  you  to  re- 
member, now  and  forever,  that  it  is  your  busi- 
ness, and  not  mine ;  that  if  the  union  of  these 
States  and  the  liberties  of  this  people  shall  be 
lost,  it  is  but  little  to  any  one  man  of  fifty-two 
years  of  age,  but  a  great  deal  to  the  thirty 
millions  of  people  who  inhabit  these  United 
States,  and  to  their  posterity  in  all  coming 
time.  —  Remarks  at  Indianapolis;  February 
ii,  1861. 


IN  their  [the  Secessionists']  view,  the  Union 
as  a  family  relation  would  seem  to  be  no 
regular  marriage,  but  rather  a  sort  of  "free- 
love"  arrangement,   to  be  maintained  only 
116 


on  "passional  attraction."  By  the  way,  in 
what  consists  the  special  sacredness  of  a 
State?  I  speak  not  of  the  position  assigned 
to  a  State  in  the  Union  by  the  Constitution; 
for  that,  by  the  bond,  we  all  recognize.  That 
position,  however,  a  State  cannot  carry  out 
of  the  Union  with  it.  I  speak  of  that  assumed 
primary  right  of  a  State  to  rule  all  which  is 
less  than  itself,  and  ruin  all  which  is  larger 
than  itself.  If  a  State  and  a  county,  in  a  given 
case,  should  be  equal  in  extent  of  territory, 
and  equal  in  number  of  inhabitants,  in  what, 
as  a  matter  of  principle,  is  the  State  better 
than  the  county?  Would  an  exchange  of 
names  be  an  exchange  of  rights  upon  princi- 
ple ?  On  what  rightful  principle  may  a  State, 
being  not  more  than  one-fiftieth  part  of  the 
nation  in  soil  and  population,  break  up  the 
nation  and  then  coerce  a  proportionally  larger 
subdivision  of  itself  in  the  most  arbitrary  way  ? 
What  mysterious  right  to  play  tyrant  is  con- 
ferred on  a  district  of  country  with  its  people, 
by  merely  calling  it  a  State  ?  Fellow-citizens, 
I  am  not  asserting  anything;  I  am  merely 
asking  questions  for  you  to  consider.  —  Re- 
marks to  the  Indiana  Legislature;  February 
12,  1861. 

I  AGREE  with  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the 
working-men  are  the  basis  of  all  govern- 
ments, for  the  plain  reason  that  they  are  the 
more  numerous.  .  .  . 
Mr.  Chairman,  I  hold  that  while  man  exists 
117 


it  is  his  duty  to  improve  not  only  his  own  con- 
dition, but  to  assist  in  ameliorating  mankind; 
and  therefore,  without  entering  upon  the 
details  of  the  question,  I  will  simply  say  that 
I  am  for  those  means  which  will  give  the 
greatest  good  to  the  greatest  number. 

In  regard  to  the  homestead  law,  I  have  to 
say  that  in  so  far  as  the  government  lands  can 
be  disposed  of,  I  am  in  favor  of  cutting  up  the 
wild  lands  into  parcels,  so  that  every  poor 
man  may  have  a  home. 

In  regard  to  the  Germans  and  foreigners,  I 
esteem  them  no  better  than  other  people,  nor 
any  worse.  It  is  not  my  nature,  when  I  see 
a  people  borne  down  by  the  weight  of  their 
shackles  —  the  oppression  of  tyranny  —  to 
make  their  life  more  bitter  by  heaping  upon 
them  greater  burdens;  but  rather  would  I 
do  all  in  my  power  to  raise  the  yoke  than  to 
add  anything  that  would  tend  to  crush  them. 

Inasmuch  as  our  country  is  extensive  and 
new,  and  the  countries  of  Europe  are  densely 
populated,  if  there  are  any  abroad  who  desire 
to  make  this  the  land  of  their  adoption,  it  is 
not  in  my  heart  to  throw  aught  in  their  way 
to  prevent  them  from  coming  to  the  United 
States.  —  Remarks  to  Germans  at  Cincinnati; 
February  12,  1861. 


THERE  is  no  crisis  but  an  artificial  one. 
What  is  there  now  to  warrant  the  con- 
dition of  affairs  presented  by  our  friends  over 
118 


the  river?  Take  even  their  own  view  of  the 
questions  involved,  and  there  is  nothing  to 
justify  the  course  they  are  pursuing.  I  re- 
peat, then,  there  is  no  crisis,  excepting  such 
a  one  as  may  be  gotten  up  at  any  time  by 
turbulent  men  aided  by  designing  politicians. 
My  advice  to  them,  under  such  circumstances, 
is  to  keep  cool.  If  the  great  American  people 
only  keep  their  temper  on  both  sides  of  the 
line,  the  troubles  will  come  to  an  end,  and 
the  question  which  now  distracts  the  country 
will  be  settled,  just  as  surely  as  all  other  diffi- 
culties of  a  like  character  which  have  originated 
in  this  government  have  been  adjusted.  Let 
the  people  on  both  sides  keep  their  self-pos- 
session, and  just  as  other  clouds  have  cleared 
away  in  due  time,  so  will  this  great  nation  con- 
tinue to  prosper  as  heretofore. 

It  is  often  said  that  the  tariff  is  the  specialty 
of  Pennsylvania.  Assuming  that  direct  taxa- 
tion is  not  to  be  adopted,  the  tariff  question 
must  be  as  durable  as  the  government  itself. 
It  is  a  question  of  national  housekeeping.  It 
is  to  the  government  what  replenishing  the 
meal-tub  is  to  the  family.  Ever-varying 
circumstances  will  require  frequent  modifica- 
tions as  to  the  amount  needed  and  the  sources 
of  supply.  So  far  there  is  little  difference  of 
opinion  among  the  people.  It  is  as  to  whether 
and  how  far,  duties  on  imports  shall  be  ad- 
justed to  favor  home  production  in  the  home 
market,  that  controversy  begins.  One  party 
119 


insists  that  such  adjustment  oppresses  one 
class  for  the  advantage  of  another;  while  the 
other  party  argues  that,  with  all  its  incidents, 
in  the  long  run  all  classes  are  benefited.  .  .  . 
I  have  by  no  means  a  thoroughly  matured 
judgment  upon  this  subject,  especially  as  to 
details;  some  general  ideas  are  about  all.  I 
have  long  thought  it  would  be  to  our  advan- 
tage to  produce  any  necessary  article  at  home 
which  can  be  made  of  as  good  quality  and 
with  as  little  labor  at  home  as  abroad,  at  least 
by  the  difference  of  the  carrying  from  abroad. 
In  such  case  the  carrying  is  demonstrably  a 
dead  loss  of  labor.  For  instance,  labor  being 
the  true  standard  of  value,  is  it  not  plain  that 
if  equal  labor  get  a  bar  of  railroad  iron  out  of 
a  mine  in  England,  and  another  out  of  a  mine 
in  Pennsylvania,  each  can  be  laid  down  in  a 
track  at  home  cheaper  than  they  could  ex- 
change countries,  at  least  by  the  carriage? 
If  there  be  a  present  cause  why  one  can  be 
both  made  and  carried  cheaper  in  money 
price  than  the  other  can  be  made  without 
carrying,  that  cause  is  an  unnatural  and  in- 
jurious one,  and  ought  gradually,  if  not 
rapidly,  to  be  removed.  —  Remarks  at  Pitts- 
burg;  February  15,  1861. 


THERE  is  nothing  that  could  ever  bring 
me  to  consent  —  willingly  to  consent  — 
to  the  destruction  of  this  Union  (in  which  not 
only  the  great  city  of  New  York,   but  the 
120 


whole  country,  has  acquired  its  greatness), 
unless  it  would  be  that  thing  for  which  the 
Union  itself  was  made.  I  understand  that 
the  ship  is  made  for  the  carrying  and  preser- 
vation of  the  cargo;  and  so  long  as  the  ship 
is  safe  with  the  cargo,  it  shall  not  be  aban- 
doned. This  Union  shall  never  be  abandoned, 
unless  the  possibility  of  its  existence  shall 
cease  to  exist  without  the  necessity  of  throw- 
ing passengers  and  cargo  overboard.  —  Re- 
marks at  New  York;  February  20,  1861. 


AWAY  back  in  my  childhood,  the  earliest 
days  of  my  being  able  to  read,  I  got 
hold  of  a  small  book,  .  .  .  Weems'  "Life  of 
Washington."  I  remember  all  the  accounts 
there  given  of  the  battle-fields  and  struggles 
[of  our  forefathers]  for  the  liberties  of  the 
country.  ...  I  recollect  thinking  then,  boy 
even  though  I  was,  that  there  must  have  been 
something  more  than  common  that  these  men 
struggled  for.  I  am  exceedingly  anxious  that 
that  thing  —  that  something  even  more  than 
national  independence;  that  something  that 
held  out  a  great  promise  to  all  the  people  of 
the  world  to  all  time  to  come  —  I  am  exceed- 
ingly anxious  that  this  U,nion,  the  Constitu- 
tion, and  the  liberties  of  the  people  shall  be 
perpetuated  in  accordance  with  the  original 
idea  for  which  that  struggle  was  made,  and  I 
shall  be  most  happy  indeed  if  I  shall  be  a 
humble  instrument  in  the  hands  of  the  Al- 
121 


mighty,  and  of  this,  his  almost  chosen  people, 
for  perpetuating  the  object  of  that  great  strug- 
gle. —  Remarks  to  the  Senate  of  New  Jersey; 
February  21,  1861. 


IT  was  not  the  mere  matter  of  separation 
of  the  colonies  from  the  motherland,  but 
that  sentiment  in  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence which  gave  liberty  not  alone  to  the 
people  of  this  country,  but  hope  to  all  the 
world,  for  all  future  time.  It  was  that  which 
gave  promise  that  in  due  time  the  weights 
would  be  lifted  from  the  shoulders  of  all  men, 
and  that  all  should  have  an  equal  chance. 
This  is  the  sentiment  embodied  in  the  Decla- 
ration of  Independence.  Now,  my  friends, 
can  this  country  be  saved  on  that  basis?  If 
it  can,  I  will  consider  myself  one  of  the  hap- 
piest men  in  the  world  if  I  can  help  to  save  it. 
If  it  cannot  be  saved  upon  that  principle,  it 
will  be  truly  awful.  But  if  this  country  can- 
not be  saved  without  giving  up  that  principle, 
I  was  about  to  say  I  would  rather  be  assas- 
sinated on  this  spot  than  surrender  it.  —  Re- 
marks in  Independence  Hall,  Philadelphia; 
February  22,  1861. 


I  HOLD  that,  in  contemplation  of  universal 
law  and  of  the  Constitution,  the  Union  of 
these  States  is  perpetual.     Perpetuity  is  im- 
plied, if  not  expressed,  in  the  fundamental 


law  of  all  national  governments.  It  is  safe  to 
assert  that  no  government  proper  ever  had  a 
provision  in  its  organic  law  for  its  own  termi- 
nation. Continue  to  execute  all  the  express 
provisions  of  our  National  Constitution,  and 
the  Union  will  endure  forever  —  it  being  im- 
possible to  destroy  it  except  by  some  action 
not  provided  for  in  the  instrument  itself. 

Again,  if  the  United  States  be  not  a  govern- 
ment proper,  but  an  association  of  States  in 
the  nature  of  contract  merely,  can  it,  as  a  con- 
tract, be  peaceably  unmade  by  less  than  all 
the  parties  who  made  it?  One  party  to  a 
contract  may  violate  it  —  break  it,  so  to 
speak;  but  does  it  not  require  all  to  lawfully 
rescind  it?  ... 

It  follows  from  these  views  that  no  State 
upon  its  own  mere  motion  can  lawfully  get 
out  of  the  Union;  that  resolves  and  ordi- 
nances to  that  effect  are  legally  void;  and 
that  acts  of  violence,  within  any  State  or 
States,  against  the  authority  of  the  United 
States,  are  insurrectionary  or  revolutionary, 
according  to  circumstances. 

I  therefore  consider  that,  in  view  of  the 
Constitution  and  the  laws,  the  Union  is  un- 
broken; and  to  the  extent  of  my  ability  I 
shall  take  care,  as  the  Constitution  itself  ex- 
pressly enjoins  upon  me,  that  the  laws  of  the 
Union  be  faithfully  executed  in  all  the  States. 
Doing  this  I  deem  to  be  only  a  simple  duty 
on  my  part;  and  I  shall  perform  it  so  far  as 
practicable,  unless  my  rightful  masters,  the 
123 


American  people,  shall  withhold  the  requisite 
means,  or  in  some  authoritative  manner 
direct  the  contrary.  I  trust  this  will  not  be 
regarded  as  a  menace,  but  only  as  the  declared 
purpose  of  the  Union  that  it  will  constitution- 
ally defend  and  maintain  itself. 

In  doing  this  there  needs  to  be  no  bloodshed 
or  violence;  and  there  shall  be  none,  unless 
it  be  forced  upon  the  national  authority.  The 
power  confided  to  me  will  be  used  to  hold, 
occupy,  and  possess  the  property  and  places 
belonging  to  the  government,  and  to  collect 
the  duties  and  imposts;  but  beyond  what 
may  be  necessary  for  these  objects,  there  will 
be  no  invasion,  no  using  of  force  against  or 
among  the  people  anywhere.  .  .  . 

The  mails,  unless  repelled,  will  continue  to 
be  furnished  in  all  parts  of  the  Union.  So  far 
as  possible,  the  people  everywhere  shall  have 
that  sense  of  perfect  security  which  is  most 
favorable  to  calm  thought  and  reflection. 

Plainly,  the  central  idea  of  secession  is  the 
essence  of  anarchy.  A  majority  held  in  re- 
straint by  constitutional  checks  and  limita- 
tions, and  always  changing  easily  with  delib- 
erate changes  of  popular  opinions  and  senti- 
ments, is  the  only  true  sovereign  of  a  free 
people.  Whoever  rejects  it  does,  of  necessity, 
fly  to  anarchy  or  to  despotism.  Unanimity  is 
impossible;  the  rule  of  a  minority,  as  a  per- 
manent arrangement,  is  wholly  inadmissible; 
so  that,  rejecting  the  majority  principle,  an- 
124 


archy  or  despotism  in  some  form  is  all  that 
is  left. 

Physically  speaking,  we  cannot  separate. 
We  cannot  remove  our  respective  sections 
from  each  other,  nor  build  an  impassable  wall 
between  them.  A  husband  and  wife  may  be 
divorced,  and  go  out  of  the  presence  and  be- 
yond the  reach  of  each  other;  but  the  differ- 
ent parts  of  our  country  cannot  do  this.  They 
cannot  but  remain  face  to  face,  and  inter- 
course, either  amicable  or  hostile,  must  con- 
tinue between  them.  Is  it  possible,  then,  to 
make  that  intercourse  more  advantageous  or 
more  satisfactory  after  separation  than  be- 
fore? Can  aliens  make  treaties  easier  than 
friends  can  make  laws  ?  Can  treaties  be  more 
faithfully  enforced  between  aliens  than  laws 
can  among  friends?  Suppose  you  go  to  war, 
you  cannot  fight  always;  and  when,  after 
much  loss  on  both  sides,  and  no  gain  on  either, 
you  cease  fighting,  the  identical  old  questions 
as  to  terms  of  intercourse  are  again  upon  you. 

This  country,  with  its  institutions,  belongs 
to  the  people  who  inhabit  it.  Whenever  they 
shall  grow  weary  of  the  existing  government, 
they  can  exercise  their  constitutional  right  of 
amending  it,  or  their  revolutionary  right  to 
dismember  or  overthrow  it.  ... 

Why  should  there  not  be  a  patient  confi- 
dence in  the  ultimate  justice  of  the  people? 
Is  there  any  better  or  equal  hope  in  the  world  ? 
In  our  present  differences  is  either  party  with- 


out  faith  of  being  in  the  right?  If  the  Al- 
mighty Ruler  of  Nations,  with  his  eternal 
truth  and  justice,  be  on  your  side  of  the 
North,  or  on  yours  of  the  South,  that  truth 
and  that  justice  will  surely  prevail  by  the 
judgment  of  this  great  tribunal  of  the  Ameri- 
can people.  ... 

In  your  hands,  my  dissatisfied  fellow- 
countrymen,  and  not  in  mine,  is  the  momen- 
tous issue  of  civil  war.  The  government  will 
not  assail  you.  You  can  have  no  conflict 
without  being  yourselves  the  aggressors.  You 
have  no  oath  registered  in  heaven  to  destroy 
the  government,  while  I  shall  have  the  most 
solemn  one  to  "preserve,  protect,  and  de- 
fend it." 

I  am  loath  to  close.  We  are  not  enemies, 
but  friends.  We  must  not  be  enemies. 
Though  passion  may  have  strained,  it  must 
not  break  our  bonds  of  affection.  The  mystic 
chords  of  memory,  stretching  from  every 
battle-field  and  patriot  grave  to  every  living 
heart  and  hearthstone  all  over  this  broad 
land,  will  yet  swell  the  chorus  of  the  Union 
when  again  touched,  as  surely  they  will  be, 
by  the  better  angels  of  our  nature.  —  First 
Inaugural  Address;  March  4,  1861. 


MUCH  is  said   about  the  "sovereignty" 
of  the  States;  but  the  word  even  is  not 
in  the  National  Constitution,  nor,  as  is  be- 
lieved, in  any  of  the  State  constitutions.   What 
126 


is  '/sovereignty"  in  the  political  sense  of  the 
term?  Would  it  be  far  wrong  to  define  it  "a 
political  community  without  a  political  su- 
perior" ?  Tested  by  this,  no  one  of  our  States 
except  Texas  ever  was  a  sovereignty.  And 
even  Texas  gave  up  the  character  on  coming 
into  the  Union;  by  which  act  she  acknowl- 
edged the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
and  the  laws  and  treaties  of  the  United  States 
made  in  pursuance  of  the  Constitution,  to  be 
for  her  the  supreme  law  of  the  land.  The 
States  have  their  status  in  the  Union,  and 
they  have  no  other  legal  status.  If  they  break 
from  this,  they  can  only  do  so  against  law 
and  by  revolution.  The  Union,  and  not 
themselves  separately,  procured  their  inde- 
pendence and  their  liberty.  By  conquest  or 
purchase  the  Union  gave  each  of  them  what- 
ever of  independence  or  liberty  it  has.  The 
Union  is  older  than  any  of  the  States,  and, 
in  fact,  it  created  them  as  States.  Originally 
some  dependent  colonies  made  the  Union, 
and,  in  turn,  the  Union  threw  off  their  old 
dependence  for  them,  and  made  them  States, 
such  as  they  are.  Not  one  of  them  ever 
had  a  State  constitution  independent  of  the 
Union.  .  .  . 

This  relative  matter  of  national  power  and 
State  rights,  as  a  principle,  is  no  other  than 
the  principle  of  generality  and  locality. 
Whatever  concerns  the  whole  should  be  con- 
fided to  the  whole  —  to  the  General  Govern- 
ment; while  whatever  concerns  only  the  State 
127 


should  be  left  exclusively  to  the  State.  This 
is  all  there  is  of  the  original  principle  about 
it.  Whether  the  National  Constitution  in 
defining  boundaries  between  the  two  has  ap- 
plied the  principle  with  exact  accuracy,  is  not 
to  be  questioned.  We  are  all  bound  by  that 
denning,  without  question. 

It  might  seem,  at  first  thought,  to  be  of 
little  difference  whether  the  present  move- 
ment at  the  South  be  called  "secession  "  or 
"rebellion."  The  movers,  however,  will 
understand  the  difference.  At  the  beginning 
they  knew  they  could  never  raise  their  treason 
to  any  respectable  magnitude  by  any  name 
which  implies  violation  of  law.  They  knew 
their  people  possessed  as  much  of  moral  sense, 
as  much  of  devotion  to  law  and  order,  and 
as  much  pride  in  and  reverence  for  the  history 
and  government  of  their  common  country  as 
any  other  civilized  and  patriotic  people. 
They  knew  they  could  make  no  advancement 
directly  in  the  teeth  of  these  strong  and  noble 
sentiments.  Accordingly,  they  commenced 
by  an  insidious  debauching  of  the  public 
mind.  They  invented  an  ingenious  sophism 
which,  if  conceded,  was  followed  by  perfectly 
logical  steps,  through  all  the  incidents,  to  the 
complete  destruction  of  the  Union.  The 
sophism  itself  is  that  any  State  of  the  Union 
may  consistently  with  the  National  Constitu- 
tion, and  therefore  lawfully  and  peacefully, 
withdraw  from  the  Union  without  the  con- 
sent of  the  Union  or  of  any  other  State.  The 
128 


little  disguise  that  the  supposed  right  is  to  be 
exercised  only  for  just  cause,  themselves  to 
be  the  sole  judges  of  its  justice,  is  too  thin  to 
merit  any  notice. 

With  rebellion  thus  sugar-coated  they  have 
been  drugging  the  public  mind  of  their  section 
for  more  than  thirty  years,  and  until  at  length 
they  have  brought  many  good  men  to  a  will- 
ingness to  take  up  arms  against  the  govern- 
ment the  day  after  some  assemblage  of  men 
have  enacted  the  farcical  pretense  of  taking 
their  State  out  of  the  Union,  who  could  have 
been  brought  to  no  such  thing  the  day  before. 

This  sophism  derives  much,  perhaps  the 
whole,  of  its  currency  from  the  assumption 
that  there  is  some  omnipotent  and  sacred  su- 
premacy pertaining  to  a  State  —  to  each  State 
of  our  Federal  Union.  Our  States  have 
neither  more  nor  less  power  than  that  reserved 
to  them  in  the  Union  by  the  Constitution  — 
no  one  of  them  ever  having  been  a  State  out 
of  the  Union.  The  original  ones  passed  into 
the  Union  even  before  they  cast  off  their 
British  colonial  dependence;  and  the  new 
ones  each  came  into  the  Union  directly  from 
a  condition  of  dependence,  excepting  Texas. 
.  .  .  Nothing  should  ever  be  implied  as  law 
which  leads  to  unjust  or  absurd  consequences. 
The  nation  purchased  with  money  the  coun- 
tries out  of  which  several  of  these  States  were 
formed.  Is  it  just  that  they  shall  go  off  with- 
out leave  and  without  refunding?  .  .  .  The 
nation  is  now  in  debt  for  money  applied  to  the 

9  I29 


benefit  of  these  so-called  seceding  States  in 
common  with  the  rest.  Is  it  just  either  that 
creditors  shall  go  unpaid  or  the  remaining 
States  pay  the  whole?  .  .  . 

Again,  if  one  State  may  secede,  so  may  an- 
other; and  when  all  shall  have  seceded,  none 
is  left  to  pay  the  debts.  Is  this  quite  just  to 
creditors?  Did  we  notify  them  of  this  sage 
view  of  ours  when  we  borrowed  their  money  ? 
If  we  now  recognize  this  doctrine  by  allowing 
the  seceders  to  go  in  peace,  it  is  difficult  to  see 
what  we  can  do  if  others  choose  to  go  or  to 
extort  terms  upon  which  they  will  promise  to 
remain. 

The  seceders  insist  that  our  Constitution 
admits  of  secession.  They  have  assumed  to 
make  a  national  constitution  of  their  own,  in 
which  of  necessity  they  have  either  discarded 
or  retained  the  right  of  secession  as  they  insist 
it  exists  in  ours.  If  they  have  discarded  it, 
they  thereby  admit  that  on  principle  it  ought 
not  to  be  in  ours.  If  they  have  retained  it  by 
their  own  construction  of  ours,  they  show  that 
to  be  consistent  they  must  secede  from  one 
another  whenever  they  shall  find  it  the  easiest 
way  of  settling  their  debts,  or  effecting  any 
other  selfish  or  unjust  object.  The  principle 
itself  is  one  of  disintegration,  and  upon  which 
no  government  can  possibly  endure. 

If  all  the  States  save  one  should  assert  the 

power  to  drive  that  one  out  of  the  Union,  it  is 

presumed  the  whole  class  of  seceder  politicians 

would  at  once  deny  the  power  and  denounce 

130 


the  act  as  the  greatest  outrage  upon  State 
right.  But  suppose  that  precisely  the  same 
act,  instead  of  being  called  "driving  the  one 
out,"  should  be  called  "the  seceding  of  the 
others  from  that  one,"  it  would  be  exactly 
what  the  seceders  claim  to  do,  unless,  indeed, 
they  make  the  point  that  the  one,  because  it 
is  a  minority,  may  rightfully  do  what  the 
others,  because  they  are  a  majority,  may  not 
rightfully  do.  These  politicians  are  subtle 
and  profound  on  the  rights  of  minorities. 
They  are  not  partial  to  that  power  which 
made  the  Constitution  and  speaks  from  the 
preamble  calling  itself  "We,  the  People." 

It  may  be  affirmed  without  extravagance 
that  the  free  institutions  we  enjoy  have  devel- 
oped the  powers  and  improved  the  condition 
of  our  whole  people  beyond  any  example  in 
the  world.  Of  this  we  now  have  a  striking 
and  impressive  illustration.  So  large  an 
army  as  the  government  has  now  on  foot  was 
never  before  known,  without  a  soldier  in  it 
but  who  has  taken  his  place  there  of  his  own 
free  choice.  But  more  than  this,  there  are 
many  single  regiments  whose  members,  one 
and  another,  possess  full  practical  knowledge 
of  all  the  arts,  sciences,  professions,  and  what- 
ever else,  whether  useful  or  elegant,  is  known 
in  the  world;  and  there  is  scarcely  one  from 
which  there  could  not  be  selected  a  President, 
a  cabinet,  a  congress,  and  perhaps  a  court, 
abundantly  competent  to  administer  the  gov- 


ernment  itself.  Nor  do  I  say  this  is  not  true 
also  in  the  army  of  our  late  friends,  now  ad- 
versaries in  this  contest ;  but  if  it  is,  so  much 
better  the  reason  why  the  government  which 
has  conferred  such  benefits  on  both  them  and 
us  should  not  be  broken  up.  Whoever  in  any 
section  proposes  to  abandon  such  a  govern- 
ment would  do  well  to  consider  in  deference 
to  what  principle  it  is  that  he  does  it  —  what 
better  he  is  likely  to  get  in  its  stead  —  whether 
the  substitute  will  give,  or  be  intended  to  give, 
so  much  of  good  to  the  people?  There  are 
some  foreshadowings  on  this  subject.  Our 
adversaries  have  adopted  some  declarations 
of  independence  in  which,  unlike  the  good 
old  one,  penned  by  Jefferson,  they  omit  the 
words  "all  men  are  created  equal."  Why? 
They  have  adopted  a  temporary  national  con- 
stitution, in  the  preamble  of  which,  unlike 
our  good  old  one,  signed  by  Washington,  they 
omit  "We,  the  People,"  and  substitute,  "We, 
the  deputies  of  the  sovereign  and  independent 
States."  Why?  Why  this  deliberate  press- 
ing out  of  view  the  rights  of  men  and  the 
authority  of  the  people  ? 

This  is  essentially  a  people's  contest.  On 
the  side  of  the  Union  it  is  a  struggle  for  main- 
taining in  the  world  that  form  and  substance 
of  government  whose  leading  object  is  to 
elevate  the  condition  of  men  —  to  lift  artifi- 
cial weights  from  all  shoulders;  to  clear  the 
paths  of  laudable  pursuit  for  all ;  to  afford  all 
an  unfettered  start  and  a  fair  chance  in  the 
132 


race  of  life.  Yielding  to  partial  and  temporary 
departures,  from  necessity,  this  is  the  lead- 
ing object  of  the  government  for  whose  ex- 
istence we  contend. 

Our  popular  government  has  often  been 
called  an  experiment.  Two  points  in  it  our 
people  have  already  settled  —  the  successful 
establishing  and  the  successful  administering 
of  it.  One  still  remains  —  its  successful 
maintenance  against  a  formidable  internal 
attempt  to  overthrow  it.  It  is  now  for  them 
to  demonstrate  to  the  world  that  those  who 
can  fairly  carry  an  election  can  also  suppress 
a  rebellion;  that  ballots  are  the  rightful  and 
peaceful  successors  of  bullets;  and  that  when 
ballots  have  fairly  and  constitutionally  de- 
cided, there  can  be  no  successful  appeal  back 
to  bullets;  that  there  can  be  no  successful 
appeal,  except  to  ballots  themselves,  at  suc- 
ceeding elections.  Such  will  be  a  great  lesson 
of  peace :  teaching  men  that  what  they  cannot 
take  by  an  election,  neither  can  they  take  it 
by  a  war;  teaching  all  the  folly  of  being  the 
beginners  of  a  war. 


It  was  with  the  deepest  regret  that  the  exec- 
utive found  the  duty  of  employing  the  war 
power  in  defense  of  the  government  forced 
upon  him.  He  could  but  perform  this  duty 
or  surrender  the  existence  of  the  government. 
No  compromise  by  public  servants  could,  in 
this  case,  be  a  cure ;  not  that  compromises  are 
133 


not  often  proper,  but  that  no  popular  govern- 
ment can  long  survive  a  marked  precedent 
that  those  who  carry  an  election  can  only 
save  the  government  from  immediate  destruc- 
tion by  giving  up  the  main  point  upon  which 
the  people  gave  the  election.  The  people 
themselves,  and  not  their  servants,  can  safely 
reverse  their  own  deliberate  decisions. 

As  a  private  citizen  the  executive  could  not 
have  consented  that  these  institutions  shall 
perish;  much  less  could  he,  in  betrayal  of  so 
vast  and  so  sacred  a  trust  as  the  free  people 
have  confided  to  him.  He  felt  that  he  had  no 
moral  right  to  shrink,  nor  even  to  count  the 
chances  of  his  own  life  in  what  might  follow. 
In  full  view  of  his  great  responsibility  he  has, 
so  far,  done  what  he  has  deemed  his  duty. 
You  will  now,  according  to  your  own  judg- 
ment, perform  yours.  He  sincerely  hopes 
that  your  views  and  your  actions  may  so  ac- 
cord with  his,  as  to  assure  all  faithful  citizens 
who  have  been  disturbed  in  their  rights  of  a 
certain  and  speedy  restoration  to  them,  under 
the  Constitution  and  the  laws. 

And  having  thus  chosen  our  course,  with- 
out guile  and  with  pure  purpose,  let  us  renew 
our  trust  in  God,  and  go  forward  without  fear 
and  with  manly  hearts.  —  Message  to  Congress 
in  Special  Session;  July  4,  1861. 

MY  DEAR  SIR:  Yours  of  the  i;th  is  just 
received ;  and  coming  from  you,  I  con- 
fess it  astonishes  me.    That  you  should  object 
134 


to  my  adhering  to  a  law  which  you  had  as- 
sisted in  making  and  presenting  to  me  less 
than  a  month  before  is  odd  enough.  But  this 
is  a  very  small  part.  General  Fremont's  proc- 
lamation as  to  confiscation  of  property  and 
the  liberation  of  slaves  is  purely  political  and 
not  within  the  range  of  military  law  or  neces- 
sity. If  a  commanding  general  finds  a  neces- 
sity to  seize  the  farm  of  a  private  owner  for  a 
pasture,  an  encampment,  or  a  fortification,  he 
has  the  right  to  do  so,  and  to  so  hold  it  as 
long  as  the  necessity  lasts;  and  this  is  within 
military  law,  because  within  military  neces- 
sity. But  to  say  the  farm  shall  no  longer 
belong  to  the  owner,  or  his  heirs  forever,  and 
this  as  well  when  the  farm  is  not  needed  for 
military  purposes  as  when  it  is,  is  purely 
political,  without  the  savor  of  military  law 
about  it.  And  the  same  is  true  of  slaves.  If 
the  general  needs  them,  he  can  seize  them  and 
use  them ;  but  when  the  need  is  past,  it  is  not 
for  him  to  fix  their  permanent  future  condi- 
tion. That  must  be  settled  according  to  laws 
made  by  law-makers,  and  not  by  military 
proclamations.  The  proclamation  in  the 
point  in  question  is  simply  "dictatorship." 
It  assumes  that  the  general  may  do  anything 
he  pleases  —  confiscate  the  lands  and  free  the 
slaves  of  loyal  people,  as  well  as  of  disloyal 
ones.  And  going  the  whole  figure,  I  have  no 
doubt,  would  be  more  popular  with  some 
thoughtless  people  than  that  which  has  been 
done !  But  I  cannot  assume  this  reckless 

135 


position,  nor  allow  others  to  assume  ft  on  my 
responsibility. 

You  speak  of  it  as  being  the  only  means  of 
saving  the  government.  On  the  contrary,  it 
is  itself  the  surrender  of  the  government.  Can 
it  be  pretended  that  it  is  any  longer  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  —  any  govern- 
ment of  constitution  and  laws  —  wherein  a 
general  or  a  president  may  make  permanent 
rules  of  property  by  proclamation  ?  I  do  not 
say  Congress  might  not  with  propriety  pass  a 
law  on  the  point,  just  such  as  General  Fre- 
mont proclaimed.  I  do  not.  say  I  might  not, 
as  a  member  of  Congress,  vote  for  it.  What 
I  object  to  is,  that  I,  as  President,  shall  ex- 
pressly or  impliedly  seize  and  exercise  the 
permanent  legislative  functions  of  the  gov- 
ernment. —  Letter  to  O.  H.  Browning;  Sep- 
tember 22,  1861. 

MY  DEAR  SIR:  The  lady  bearer  of  this 
says  she  has  two  sons  who  want  to 
work.    Wanting  to  work  is  so  rare  a  want 
that  it  should  be  encouraged. —  Note  to  Major 
Ramsey;   October  17,  1861. 

IT  has  been  said  that  one  bad  general  is 
better  than  two  good  ones;   and  the  say- 
ing is  true,  if  taken  to  mean  no  more  than  that 
an  army  is  better  directed  by  a  single  mind, 
though  inferior,  than  by  two  superior  ones  at 
variance  and  cross-purposes  with  each  other. 
136 


And  the  same  is  true  in  all  joint  operations 
wherein  those  engaged  can  have  none  but  a 
common  end  in  view,  and  can  differ  only  as 
to  the  choice  of  means.  In  a  storm  at  sea  no 
one  on  board  can  wish  the  ship  to  sink;  and 
yet  not  infrequently  all  go  down  together  be- 
cause too  many  will  direct,  and  no  single  mind 
can  be  allowed  to  control. 

It  is  not  needed  nor  fitting  here  that  a  gen- 
eral argument  should  be  made  in  favor  of 
popular  institutions;  but  there  is  one  point, 
with  its  connections,  not  so  hackneyed  as 
most  others,  to  which  I  ask  a  brief  attention. 
It  is  the  effort  to  place  capital  on  an  equal 
footing  with,  if  not  above,  labor,  in  the  struc- 
ture of  government.  It  is  assumed  that  labor 
is  available  only  in  connection  with  capital; 
that  nobody  labors  unless  somebody  else,  own- 
ing capital,  somehow  by  the  use  of  it  induces 
him  to  labor.  This  assumed,  it  is  next  con- 
sidered whether  it  is  best  that  capital  shall  hire 
laborers,  and  thus  induce  them  to  work  by 
their  own  consent,  or  buy  them  and  drive 
them  to  it  without  their  consent.  Having 
proceeded  thus  far,  it  is  naturally  concluded 
that  all  laborers  are  either  hired  laborers  or 
what  we  call  slaves.  And,  further,  it  is  as- 
sumed that  whoever  is  once  a  hired  laborer  is 
fixed  in  that  condition  for  life. 

Now,  there  is  no  such  relation  between 
capital  and  labor  as  assumed,  nor  is  there  any 
such  thing  as  a  free  man  being  fixed  for  life 
137 


in  the  condition  of  a  hired  laborer.  Both 
these  assumptions  are  false,  and  all  inferences 
from  them  are  groundless. 

Labor  is  prior  to,  and  independent  of,  cap- 
ital. Capital  is  only  the  fruit  of  labor,  and 
could  never  have  existed  if  labor  had  not  first 
existed.  Labor  is  the  superior  of  capital,  and 
deserves  much  the  higher  consideration.  Cap- 
ital has  its  rights,  which  are  as  worthy  of  pro- 
tection as  any  other  rights.  Nor  is  it  denied 
that  there  is,  and  probably  always  will  be,  a 
relation  between  labor  and  capital  producing 
mutual  benefits.  The  error  is  in  assuming 
that  the  whole  labor  of  the  community  exists 
within  that  relation.  A  few  men  own  capital, 
and  that  few  avoid  labor  themselves,  and 
with  their  capital  hire  or  buy  another  few  to 
labor  for  them.  A  large  majority  belong  to 
neither  class  —  neither  work  for  others  nor 
have  others  working  for  them.  In  most  of 
the  Southern  States  a  majority  of  the  whole 
people,  of  all  colors,  are  neither  slaves  nor 
masters;  while  in  the  Northern  a  large  ma- 
jority are  neither  hirers  nor  hired.  Men  with 
their  families  —  wives,  sons,  and  daughters 
—  work  for  themselves,  on  their  farms,  in 
their  houses,  and  in  their  shops,  taking  the 
whole  product  to  themselves,  and  asking  no 
favors  of  capital  on  the  one  hand,  nor  of  hired 
laborers  or  slaves  on  the  other.  It  is  not  for- 
gotten that  a  considerable  number  of  persons 
mingle  their  own  labor  with  capital  —  that 
is,  they  labor  with  their  own  hands  and  also 
138 


buy  or  hire  others  to  labor  for  them;  but  this 
is  only  a  mixed  and  not  a  distinct  class.  No 
principle  stated  is  disturbed  by  the  existence 
of  this  mixed  class. 

Again,  as  has  already  been  said,  there  is  not, 
of  necessity,  any  such  thing  as  the  free  hired 
laborer  being  fixed  to  that  condition  for  life. 
Many  independent  men  everywhere  in  these 
States,  a  few  years  back  in  their  lives,  were 
hired  laborers.  The  prudent,  penniless  be- 
ginner in  the  world  labors  for  wages  'awhile, 
saves  a  surplus  with  which  to  buy  tools  or  land 
for  himself,  then  labors  on  his  own  account 
another  while,  and  at  length  hires  another 
new  beginner  to  help  him.  This  is  the  just 
and  generous  and  prosperous  system  which 
opens  the  way  to  all  —  gives  hope  to  all,  and 
consequent  energy  and  progress  and  improve- 
ment of  condition  to  all.  No  men  living  are 
more  worthy  to  be  trusted  than  those  who  toil 
up  from  poverty  —  none  less  inclined  to  take 
or  touch  aught  which  they  have  not  honestly 
earned.  Let  them  beware  of  surrendering  a 
political  power  which  they  already  possess, 
and  which,  if  surrendered,  will  surely  be  used 
to  close  the  door  of  advancement  against  such 
as  they,  and  to  fix  new  disabilities  and  bur- 
dens upon  them,  till  all  of  liberty  shall  be  lost. 

From  the  first  taking  of  our  national  census 
to  the  last  are  seventy  years;  and  we  find  our 
population  at  the  end  of  the  period  eight  times 
as  great  as  it  was  at  the  beginning.  The  in- 
crease of  those  other  things  which  men  deem 

139 


desirable  has  been  even  greater.  We  thus 
have,  at  one  view,  what  the  popular  principle, 
applied  to  government,  through  the  machinery 
of  the  States  and  the  Union,  has  produced  in 
a  given  time;  and  also  what,  if  firmly  main- 
tained, it  promises  for  the  future.  There  are 
already  among  us  those  who,  if  the  Union  be 
preserved,  will  live  to  see  it  contain  250,000,000. 
The  struggle  of  to-day  is  not  altogether  for 
to-day  —  it  is  for  a  vast  future  also.  With 
a  reliance  on  Providence  all  the  more  firm 
and  earnest,  let  us  proceed  in  the  great  task 
which  events  have  devolved  upon  us.  —  An- 
nual Message  to  Congress;  December  3,  1861. 


I  HAVE  been,  and  am  sincerely  your  friend; 
and  if,  as  such,  I  dare  to  make  a  sugges- 
tion, I  would  say  you  are  adopting  the  best 
possible  way  to  ruin  yourself.  "Act  well 
your  part,  there  all  the  honor  lies."  He  who 
does  something  at  the  head  of  one  Regiment, 
will  eclipse  him  who  does  nothing  at  the  head 
of  a  hundred. 

Your  friend,  as  ever, 

A.  LINCOLN. 

—  Letter  to  Major-Ceneral  David  Hunter; 
December  31,  I86I.1 

1  On  the  outside  of  the  envelope  in  which  this  letter 
was  found,  General  Hunter  had  written  : 

"  The  President's  reply  to  my l  ugly  letter.'  This  lay 
on  his  table  a  month  after  it  was  written,  and  when 
finally  sent  was  by  a  special  conveyance,  with  the  direc- 
tion that  it  was  only  to  be  given  to  me  when  I  was  in  a 
good  humor." 

140 


CAN  you,  for  your  States,  do  better  than 
to  take  the  course  [compensated  eman- 
cipation] I  urge?  Discarding  punctilio  and 
maxims  adapted  to  more  manageable  times, 
and  looking  only  to  the  unprecedentedly  stern 
facts  of  our  case,  can  you  do  better  in  any 
possible  event  ?  You  prefer  that  the  constitu- 
tional relation  of  the  States  to  the  nation  shall 
be  practically  restored  without  disturbance 
of  that  institution;  and  if  this  were  done,  my 
whole  duty  in  this  respect,  under  the  Consti- 
tution and  my  oath  of  office,  would  be  per- 
formed. But  it  is  not  done,  and  we  are  try- 
ing to  accomplish  it  by  war.  The  incidents 
of  the  war  cannot  be  avoided.  If  the  war 
continues  long,  as  it  must  if  the  object  be  not 
sooner  attained,  the  institution  in  your  States 
will  be  extinguished  by  mere  friction  and 
abrasion  —  by  the  mere  incidents  of  the  war. 
It  will  be  gone,  and  you  will  have  nothing 
valuable  in  lieu  of  it.  Much  of  its  value  is 
gone  already.  How  much  better  for  you  and 
for  your  people  to  take  the  step  which  at  once 
shortens  the  war  and  secures  substantial  com- 
pensation for  that  which  is  sure  to  be  wholly 
lost  in  any  other  event!  How  much  better 
to  thus  save  the  money  which  else  we  sink 
forever  in  the  war !  How  much  better  to  do 
it  while  we  can,  lest  the  war  erelong  render 
us  pecuniarily  unable  to  do  it !  How  much 
better  for  you  as  seller,  and  the  nation  as 
buyer,  to  sell  out  and  buy  out  that  without 
which  the  war  could  never  have  been,  than 
141 


to  sink  both  the  thing  to  be  sold  and  the  price 
of  it  in  cutting  one  another's  throats?  I  do 
not  speak  of  emancipation  at  once,  but  of  a 
decision  at  once  to  emancipate  gradually. 
Room  in  South  America  for  colonization  can 
be  obtained  cheaply  and  in  abundance,  and 
when  numbers  shall  be  large  enough  to  be 
company  and  encouragement  for  one  another, 
the  freed  people  will  not  be  so  reluctant  to  go. 
—  Appeal  to  Border  State  Representatives; 
July  12,  1862. 


YOUR  race  is  suffering,  in  my  judgment, 
the  greatest  wrong  inflicted  on  any 
people.  But  even  when  you  cease  to  be  slaves, 
you  are  yet  far  removed  from  being  placed 
on  an  equality  with  the  white  race.  You  are 
cut  off  from  many  of  the  advantages  which 
the  other  race  enjoys.  The  aspiration  of  men 
is  to  enjoy  equality  with  the  best  when  free, 
but  on  this  broad  continent  not  a  single  man 
of  your  race  is  made  the  equal  of  a  single  man 
of  ours.  Go  where  you  are  treated  the  best, 
and  the  ban  is  still  upon  you.  .  .  .  But  for 
your  race  among  us  there  could  not  be  war, 
although  many  men  engaged  on  either  side 
do  not  care  for  you  one  way  or  the  other.  .  .  . 
It  is  better  for  us  both,  therefore,  to  be  sepa- 
rated. I  know  that  there  are  free  men  among 
you  who,  even  if  they  could  better  their  con- 
dition, are  not  as  much  inclined  to  go  out  of 
the  country  as  those  who,  being  slaves,  could 
142 


obtain  their  freedom  on  this  condition.  I 
suppose  one  of  the  principal  difficulties  in  the 
way  of  colonization  is  that  the  free  colored 
man  cannot  see  that  his  comfort  would  be 
advanced  by  it.  ...  This  is  (I  speak  in  no 
unkind  sense)  an  extremely  selfish  view  of 
the  case.  You  ought  to  do  something  to  help 
those  who  are  not  so  fortunate  as  yourselves. 
There  is  an  unwillingness  on  the  part  of  our 
people,  harsh  as  it  may  be,  for  you  free  col- 
ored people  to  remain  with  us.  Now,  if  you 
could  give  a  start  to  the  white  people,  you 
would  open  a  wide  door  for  many  to  be  made 
free.  If  we  deal  with  those  who  are  not  free 
at  the  beginning,  and  whose  intellects  are 
clouded  by  slavery,  we  have  very  poor  ma- 
terial to  start  with.  If  intelligent  colored 
men,  such  as  are  before  me,  would  move  in 
this  matter,  much  might  be  accomplished. 
It  is  exceedingly  important  that  we  have  men 
at  the  beginning  capable  of  thinking  as 
white  men,  and  not  those  who  have  been 
systematically  oppressed.  There  is  much  to 
encourage  you.  For  the  sake  of  your  race 
you  should  sacrifice  something  of  your 
present  comfort  for  the  purpose  of  being 
as  grand  in  that  respect  as  the  white  people. 
It  is  a  cheering  thought  throughout  life,  that 
something  can  be  done  to  ameliorate  the 
condition  of  those  who  have  been  subject  to 
the  hard  usages  of  the  world.  It  is  difficult 
to  make  a  man  miserable  while  he  feels  he 
is  worthy  of  himself  and  claims  kindred  to 

143 


the  great  God  who  made  him.  —  Address 
to  a  Deputation  of  Colored  Men;  August  14, 
1862. 


DEAR  SIR:  I  have  just  read  yours  of  the 
1 9th,  addressed  to  myself  through  the 
New  York  Tribune.  If  there  be  in  it  any 
statements  or  assumptions  of  fact  which  I 
may  know  to  be  erroneous,  I  do  not,  now 
and  here,  controvert  them.  If  there  be  in  it 
any  inferences  which  I  may  believe  to  be 
falsely  drawn,  I  do  not,  now  and  here,  argue 
against  them.  If  there  be  perceptible  in  it 
an  impatient  and  dictatorial  tone,  I  waive  it 
in  deference  to  an  old  friend  whose  heart  I 
have  always  supposed  to  be  right. 

As  to  the  policy  I  "seem  to  be  pursuing," 
as  you  say,  I  have  not  meant  to  leave  any  one 
in  doubt. 

I  would  save  the  Union.  I  would  save  it 
the  shortest  way  under  the  Constitution.  The 
sooner  the  national  authority  can  be  restored, 
the  nearer  the  Union  will  be  "the  Union  as 
it  was."  If  there  be  those  who  would  not 
save  the  Union  unless  they  could  at  the  same 
time  save  slavery,  I  do  not  agree  with  them. 
If  there  be  those  who  would  not  save  the 
Union  unless  they  could  at  the  same  time 
destroy  slavery,  I  do  not  agree  with  them. 
My  paramount  object  in  this  struggle  is  to 
save  the  Union,  and  is  not  either  to  save  or 
to  destroy  slavery.  If  I  could  save  the  Union 

144 


without  freeing  any  slave,  I  would  do  it;  and 
if  I  could  save  it  by  freeing  all  the  slaves,  I 
would  do  it ;  and  if  I  could  save  it  by  freeing 
some  and  leaving  others  alone,  I  would  also 
do  that.  What  I  do  about  slavery  and  the 
colored  race,  I  do  because  I  believe  it  helps 
to  save  the  Union;  and  what  I  forbear,  I  for- 
bear because  I  do  not  believe  it  would  help 
to  save  the  Union.  I  shall  do  less  whenever 
I  shall  believe  what  I  am  doing  hurts  the 
cause,  and  I  shall  do  more  whenever  I  shall 
believe  doing  more  will  help  the  cause.  I 
shall  try  to  correct  errors  when  shown  to  be 
errors,  and  I  shall  adopt  new  views  so  fast  as 
they  shall  appear  to  be  true  views. 

I  have  here  stated  my  purpose  according 
to  my  view  of  official  duty;  and  I  intend  no 
modification  of  my  oft-expressed  personal 
wish  that  all  men  everywhere  could  be  free.  — 
Letter  to  Horace  Greeley;  August  22,  1862. 


THE  subject  presented  in  the  memorial 
is  one  upon  which  I  have  thought  much 
for  weeks  past,  and  I  may  even  say  for  months. 
I  am  approached  with  the  most  opposite 
opinions  and  advice,  and  that  by  religious 
men  who  are  equally  certain  that  they  repre- 
sent the  divine  will.  I  am  sure  that  either  the 
one  or  the  other  class  is  mistaken  in  that  be- 
lief, and  perhaps  in  some  respects  both.  I 
hope  it  will  not  be  irreverent  for  me  to  say 
that  if  it  is  probable  that  God  would  reveal 
10  J4S 


his  will  to  others  on  a  point  so  connected  with 
my  duty,  it  might  be  supposed  he  would  re- 
veal it  directly  to  me;  for,  unless  I  am  more 
deceived  in  myself  than  I  often  am,  it  is  my 
earnest  desire  to  know  the  will  of  Providence 
in  this  matter.  And  if  I  can  learn  what  it  is, 
I  will  do  it.  These  are  not,  however,  the  days 
of  miracles,  and  I  suppose  it  will  be  granted 
that  I  am  not  to  expect  a  direct  revelation. 
I  must  study  the  plain  physical  facts  of  the 
case,  ascertain  what  is  possible,  and  learn 
what  appears  to  be  wise  and  right. 

The  subject  is  difficult,  and  good  men  do 
not  agree.  .  .  .  You  know  that  the  last  ses- 
sion of  Congress  had  a  decided  majority  of 
antislavery  men,  yet  they  could  not  unite  on 
this  policy.  And  the  same  is  true  of  the  re- 
ligious people.  Why,  the  rebel  soldiers  are 
.  praying  with  a  great  deal  more  earnestness, 
I  fear,  than  our  own  troops,  and  expecting 

God  to  favor  their  side.  .  .  . 

What  good  would  a  proclamation  of  eman- 
cipation from  me  do,  especially  as  we  are  now 
situated  ?  I  do  not  want  to  issue  a  document 
that  the  whole  world  will  see  must  necessarily 
be  inoperative,  like  the  Pope's  bull  against 
the  comet.  Would  my  word  free  the  slaves, 
when  I  cannot  even  enforce  the  Constitution 
in  the  rebel  States?  Is  there  a  single  court, 
or  magistrate,  or  individual  that  would  be 
influenced  by  it  there?  And  what  reason  is 
there  to  think  it  would  have  any  greater  effect 
upon  the  slaves  than  the  late  law  of  Congress, 
146 


which  I  approved,  and  which  offers  protec- 
tion and  freedom  to  the  slaves  of  rebel  mas- 
ters who  come  within  our  lines  ?  Yet  I  cannot 
learn  that  that  law  has  caused  a  single  slave 
to  come  over  to  us.  And  suppose  they  could 
be  induced  by  a  proclamation  of  freedom 
from  me  to  throw  themselves  upon  us,  what 
should  we  do  with  them?  How  can  we  feed 
and  care  for  such  a  multitude?  .  .  . 

Now,  then,  tell  me,  if  you  please,  what  pos- 
sible result  of  good  would  follow  the  issuing 
of  such  a  proclamation  as  you  desire?  Un- 
derstand, I  raise  no  objections  against  it 
on  legal  or  constitutional  grounds;  for,  as 
commander-in-chief  of  the  army  and  navy,  in 
time  of  war  I  suppose  I  have  a  right  to  take 
any  measure  which  may  best  subdue  the 
enemy;  nor  do  I  urge  objections  of  a  moral 
nature,  in  view  of  possible  consequences  of 
insurrection  and  massacre  at  the  South.  I 
view  this  matter  as  a  practical  war  measure, 
to  be  decided  on  according  to  the  advantages 
or  disadvantages  it  may  offer  to  the  suppres- 
sion of  the  rebellion. 

I  admit  that  slavery  is  the  root  of  the  rebel- 
lion, or  at  least  its  sine  qua  non.  The  ambi- 
tion of  politicians  may  have  instigated  them 
to  act,  but  they  would  have  been  impotent 
without  slavery  as  their  instrument.  I  will 
also  concede  that  emancipation  would  help 
us  in  Europe,  and  convince  them  that  we  are 
incited  by  something  more  than  ambition. 
I  grant,  further,  that  it  would  help  somewhat 

147 


at  the  North,  though  not  so  much,  I  fear,  as 
you  and  those  you  represent  imagine.  Still, 
some  additional  strength  would  be  added  in 
that  way  to  the  war,  and  then,  unquestionably, 
it  would  weaken  the  rebels  by  drawing  off 
their  laborers,  which  is  of  great  importance; 
but  I  am  not  so  sure  we  could  do  much  with 
the  blacks.  If  we  were  to  arm  them,  I  fear 
that  in  a  few  weeks  the  arms  would  be  in  the 
hands  of  the  rebels;  and,  indeed,  thus  far 
we  have  not  had  arms  enough  to  equip  our 
white  troops.  I  will  mention  another  thing, 
though  it  meet  only  your  scorn  and  contempt. 
There  are  fifty  thousand  bayonets  in  the 
Union  armies  from  the  border  slave  States. 
It  would  be  a  serious  matter  if,  in  conse- 
quence of  a  proclamation  such  as  you  desire, 
they  should  go  over  to  the  rebels.  I  do  not 
think  they  all  would  —  not  so  many,  indeed, 
as  a  year  ago,  or  as  six  months  ago  —  not  so 
many  to-day  as  yesterday.  Every  day  in- 
creases their  Union  feeling.  They  are  also 
getting  their  pride  enlisted,  and  want  to  beat 
the  rebels.  Let  me  say  one  thing  more:  I 
think  you  should  admit  that  we  already  have 
an  important  principle  to  rally  and  unite  the 
people,  in  the  fact  that  constitutional  gov- 
ernment is  at  stake.  This  is  a  fundamental 
idea  going  down  about  as  deep  as  anything. 

Do  not  misunderstand  me  because  I  have 

mentioned  these  objections.     They  indicate 

the  difficulties  that  have  thus  far  prevented 

my  action  in  some  such  way  as  you  desire.    I 

148 


have  not  decided  against  a  proclamation  of 
liberty  to  the  slaves,  but  hold  the  matter 
under  advisement ;  and  I  can  assure  you  that 
the  subject  is  on  my  mind,  by  day  and  night, 
more  than  any  other.  Whatever  shall  ap- 
pear to  be  God's  will,  I  will  do.  —  Remarks 
to  Representatives  of  Chicago  Churches;  Sep- 
tember 13,  1862. 


the  first  day  of  January,  in  the  year  of 
our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and 
sixty-three,  all  persons  held  as  slaves  within 
any  State  or  designated  part  of  a  State  the 
people  whereof  shall  then  be  in  rebellion 
against  the  United  States,  shall  be  then, 
thenceforward,  and  forever  free ;  and  the  Ex- 
ecutive Government  of  the  United  States, 
including  the  military  and  naval  authority 
thereof,  will  recognize  and  maintain  the  free- 
dom of  such  persons,  and  will  do  no  act  or 
acts  to  repress  such  persons,  or  any  of  them, 
in  any  efforts  they  may  make  for  their  actual 
freedom.  —  Preliminary  Emancipation  Proc- 
lamation; September  22,  1862. 


IN  the  very  responsible  position  in  which  I 
happen  to  be  placed,  being  a  humble  in- 
strument in  the  hands  of  our  Heavenly  Father, 
as  I  am,  and  as  we  all  are,  to  work  out  his 
great  purposes,  I  have  desired  that  all  my 
works  and  acts  may  be  according  to  his  will, 

I4Q 


and  that  it  might  be  so,  I  have  sought  his 
aid;  but  if,  after  endeavoring  to  do  my  best 
in  the  light  which  he  affords  me,  I  find  my 
efforts  fail,  I  must  believe  that  for  some  pur- 
pose unknown  to  me,  he  wills  it  otherwise. 
If  I  had  had  my  way,  this  war  would  never 
have  been  commenced.  If  I  had  been  al- 
lowed my  way,  this  war  would  have  been 
ended  before  this;  but  we  find  it  still  con- 
tinues, and  we  must  believe  that  he  permits 
it  for  some  wise  purpose  of  his  own,  mysteri- 
ous and  unknown  to  us;  and  though  with 
our  limited  understandings  we  may  not  be 
able  to  comprehend  it,  yet  we  cannot  but 
believe  that  he  who  made  the  world  still 
governs  it.  —  Reply  to  an  Address  by  Mrs. 
Gurney;  September  28,  1862. 


THE  will  of  God  prevails.  In  great  con- 
tests each  party  claims  to  act  in  accord- 
ance with  the  will  of  God.  Both  may  be,  and 
one  must  be,  wrong.  God  cannot  be  for  and 
against  the  same  thing  at  the  same  time.  In 
the  present  civil  war  it  is  quite  possible  that 
God's  purpose  is.  something  different  from 
the  purpose  of  either  party;  and  yet  the 
human  instrumentalities,  working  just  as  they 
do,  are  of  the  best  adaptation  to  effect  his 
purpose.  I  am  almost  ready  to  say  that  this 
is  probably  true;  that  God  wills  this  contest, 
and  wills  that  it  shall  not  end  yet.  By  his 
mere  great  power  on  the  minds  of  the  now 


contestants,  he  could  have  either  saved  or 
destroyed  the  Union  without  a  human  con- 
test. Yet  the  contest  began.  And,  having 
begun,  he  could  give  the  final  victory  to  either 
side  any  day.  Yet  the  contest  proceeds.  — 
Meditation  on  the  Divine  Will;  September  30, 
1862. 


A  NATION  may  be  said  to  consist  of  its 
territory,  its  people,  and  its  laws.  The 
territory  is  the  only  part  which  is  of  certain 
durability.  "One  generation  passeth  away, 
and  another  generation  cometh,  but  the  earth 
abideth  forever."  It  is  of  the  first  impor- 
tance to  duly  consider  and  estimate  this  ever- 
enduring  part.  That  portion  of  the  earth's 
surface  which  is  owned  and  inhabited  by  the 
people  of  the  United  States  is  well  adapted 
to  be  the  home  of  one  national  family,  and 
it  is  not  well  adapted  for  two  or  more.  Its 
vast  extent  and  its  variety  of  climate  and  pro- 
ductions are  of  advantage  in  this  age  for  one 
people,  whatever  they  might  have  been  in 
former  ages.  Steam,  telegraphs,  and  intelli- 
gence have  brought  these  to  be  an  advanta- 
geous combination  for  one  united  people.  .  .  . 
Our  national  strife  springs  not  from  our 
permanent  part,  not  from  the  land  we  in- 
habit, not  from  our  national  homestead. 
There  is  no  possible  severing  of  this  but 
would  multiply,  and  not  mitigate,  evils  among 
us.  In  all  its  adaptations  and  aptitudes  it 


demands  union  and  abhors  separation.  In 
fact,  it  would  erelong  force  reunion,  however 
much  of  blood  and  treasure  the  separation 
might  have  cost. 

Our  strife  pertains  to  ourselves  —  to  the 
passing  generations  of  men ;  and  it  can  with- 
out convulsion  be  hushed  forever  with  the 
passing  of  one  generation. 

In  this  view  I  recommend  the  adoption  of 
the  following  resolution  and  articles  amenda- 
tory to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
[and  providing  for  compensated  emanci- 
pation]. 

Fellow-citizens,  we  cannot  escape  history. 
We  of  this  Congress  and  this  administration 
will  be  remembered  in  spite  of  ourselves.  No 
personal  significance  or  insignificance  can 
spare  one  or  another  of  us.  The  fiery  trial 
through  which  we  pass  will  light  us  down,  in 
honor  or  dishonor,  to  the  latest  generation. 
We  say  we  are  for  the  Union.  The  world  will 
not  forget  that  we  say  this.  We  know  how 
to  save  the  Union.  The  world  knows  we  do 
know  how  to  save  it.  We  —  even  we  here  — 
hold  the  power  and  bear  the  responsibility. 
In  giving  freedom  to  the  slave,  we  assure  free- 
dom to  the  free  —  honorable  alike  in  what 
we  give  and  what  we  preserve.  We  shall 
nobly  save  or  meanly  lose  the  last,  best  hope 
of  earth.  Other  means  may  succeed;  this 
could  not  fail.  The  way  is  plain,  peaceful, 
generous,  just  —  a  way  which,  if  followed, 
152 


the  world  will  forever  applaud,  and  God  must 
forever  bless.  —  A  nnual  Message  to  Congress  ,* 
December  i,  1862. 

DEAR  FANNY:  It  is  with  deep  regret 
that  I  learn  of  the  death  of  your  kind 
and  brave  father,  and  especially  that  it  is  affect- 
ing your  young  heart  beyond  what  is  common 
in  such  cases.  In  this  sad  world  of  ours  sorrow 
comes  to  all,  and  to  the  young  it  comes  with 
bitterer  agony  because  it  takes  them  una- 
wares. The  older  have  learned  ever  to  expect 
it.  I  am  anxious  to  afford  some  alleviation 
to  your  present  distress.  Perfect  relief  is  not 
possible,  except  with  time.  You  cannot  now 
realize  that  you  will  ever  feel  better.  Is  not 
this  so?  And  yet  it  is  a  mistake.  You  are 
sure  to  be  happy  again.  To  know  this,  which 
is  certainly  true,  will  make  you  some  less 
miserable  now.  I  have  had  experience  enough 
to  know  what  I  say,  and  you  need  only  to 
believe  it  to  feel  better  at  once.  The  mem- 
ory of  your  dear  father,  instead  of  an  agony, 
will  yet  be  a  sad,  sweet  feeling  in  your  heart 
of  a  purer  and  holier  sort  than  you  have 
known  before. 

Please  present  my  kind  regards  to  your 
afflicted  mother.  —  Letter  to  Miss  Fanny 
McCullough;  December  23,  1862. 

THE  division  of  a  State  is  dreaded  as  a 
precedent.     But  a  measure  made  ex- 
pedient by  a  war  is  no  precedent  for  times  of 


peace.  It  is  said  that  the  admission  of  West 
Virginia  is  secession,  and  tolerated  only  be- 
cause it  is  our  secession.  Well,  if  we  call  it 
by  that  name,  there  is  still  difference  enough 
between  secession  against  the  Constitution 
and  secession  in  favor  of  the  Constitution.  I 
believe  the  admission  of  West  Virginia  into 
the  Union  is  expedient.  —  Opinion  on  Ad- 
mission of  West  Virginia  into  the  Union; 
December  31,  1862. 

THAT  Congress  has  power  to  regulate  the 
currency  of  the  country  can  hardly 
admit  of  a  doubt,  and  that  a  judicious  meas- 
ure to  prevent  the  deterioration  of  this  cur- 
rency by  a  reasonable  taxation  of  bank  circu- 
lation or  otherwise  is  needed,  seems  equally 
clear.  Independently  of  this  general  consider- 
ation, it  would  be  unjust  to  the  people  at 
large  to  exempt  banks  enjoying  the  special 
privilege  of  circulation  from  their  just  pro- 
portion of  the  public  burdens.  —  Message  to 
Congress  on  Issue  of  United  States  Notes; 
January  17,  1863. 

I  KNOW  and  deeply  deplore  the  sufferings 
which  the  working-men  at  Manchester, 
and  in  all  Europe,  are  called  to  endure  in 
this  crisis.  It  has  been  often  and  studiously 
represented  that  the  attempt  to  overthrow 
this  government,  which  was  built  upon  the 
foundation  of  human  rights,  and  to  substitute 

154 


for  it  one  which  should  rest  exclusively  on  the 
basis  of  human  slavery,  was  likely  to  obtain 
the  favor  of  Europe.  Through  the  action  of 
our  disloyal  citizens,  the  working-men  of 
Europe  have  been  subjected  to  severe  trials, 
for  the  purpose  of  forcing  their  sanction  to 
that  attempt.  Under  the  circumstances,  I 
cannot  but  regard  your  decisive  utterances 
upon  the  question  as  an  instance  of  sublime 
Christian  heroism  which  has  not  been  sur- 
passed in  any  age  or  in  any  country.  It  is 
indeed  an  energetic  and  reinspiring  assurance 
of  the  inherent  power  of  truth,  and  of  the 
ultimate  and  universal  triumph  of  justice, 
humanity,  and  freedom.  I  do  not  doubt  that 
the  sentiments  you  have  expressed  will  be 
sustained  by  your  great  nation;  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  I  have  no  hesitation  in  assuring 
you  that  they  will  excite  admiration,  esteem, 
and  the  most  reciprocal  feelings  of  friend- 
ship among  the  American  people.  I  hail  this 
interchange  of  sentiment,  therefore,  as  an 
augury  that  whatever  else  may  happen,  what- 
ever misfortune  may  befall  your  country  or 
my  own,  the  peace  and  friendship  which  now 
exist  between  the  two  nations  will  be,  as  it 
shall  be  my  desire  to  make  them,  perpetual. 
—  Letter  to  the  Workingmen  of  Manchester, 
England;  January  19,  1863. 

/^i  ENERAL :  I  have  placed  you  at  the  head 
VJ  of  the  Army  of  the  Potomac.  Of  course 
I  have  done  this  upon  what  appear  to  me  to 

155 


be  sufficient  reasons,  and  yet  I  think  it  best 
for  you  to  know  that  there  are  some  things  in 
regard  to  which  I  am  not  quite  satisfied  with 
you.  I  believe  you  to  be  a  brave  and  skilful 
soldier,  which  of  course  I  like.  I  also  believe 
you  do  not  mix  politics  with  your  profession, 
in  which  you  are  right.  You  have  confidence 
in  yourself,  which  is  a  valuable  if  not  an 
indispensable  quality.  You  are  ambitious, 
which,  within  reasonable  bounds,  does  good 
rather  than  harm;  but  I  think  that  during 
General  Bumside's  command  of  the  army 
you  have  taken  counsel  of  your  ambition  and 
thwarted  him  as  much  as  you  could,  in  which 
you  did  a  great  wrong  to  the  country  and  to  a 
most  meritorious  and  honorable  brother  offi- 
cer. I  have  heard,  in  such  a  way  as  to  believe 
it,  of  your  recently  saying  that  both  the  army 
and  the  government  needed  a  dictator.  Of 
course  it  was  not  for  this,  but  in  spite  of  it, 
that  I  have  given  you  the  command.  Only 
those  generals  who  gain  'successes  can  set  up 
dictators.  What  I  now  ask  of  you  is  military 
success,  and  I  will  risk  the  dictatorship.  The 
government  will  support  you  to  the  utmost 
of  its  ability,  which  is  neither  more  nor  less 
than  it  has  done  and  will  do  for  all  command- 
ers. I  much  fear  that  the  spirit  which  you 
have  aided  to  infuse  into  the  army,  of  criti- 
cising their  commander  and  withholding  con- 
fidence from  him,  will  now  turn  upon  you. 
I  shall  assist  you  as  far  as  I  can  to  put  it  down. 
Neither  you  nor  Napoleon,  if  he  were  alive 
156 


again,  could  get  any  good  out  of  an  army 
while  such  a  spirit  prevails  in  it;  and  now 
beware  of  rashness.  Beware  of  rashness,  but 
with  energy  and  sleepless  vigilance  go  for- 
ward and  give  us  victories.  —  Letter  to  Major- 
General  Joseph  Hooker;  January  26,  1863. 

MY  DEAR  SIR:  Your  note,  by  which 
you,  as  general  superintendent  of  the 
United  States  Christian  Commission,  invite 
me  to  preside  at  a  meeting  to  be  held  this  day 
at  the  hall  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
in  this  city,  is  received. 

While,  for  reasons  which  I  deem  sufficient, 
I  must  decline  to  preside,  I  cannot  withhold 
my  approval  of  the  meeting  and  its  worthy 
objects.  Whatever  shall  be  sincerely,  and  in 
God's  name,  devised  for  the  good  of  the 
soldier  and  seaman  in  their  hard  spheres  of 
duty,  can  scarcely  fail  to  be  blest.  And  what- 
ever shall  tend  to  turn  our  thoughts  from  the 
unreasoning  and  uncharitable  passions,  preju- 
dices, and  jealousies  incident  to  a  great  na- 
tional trouble  such  as  ours,  and  to  fix  them 
upon  the  vast  and  long-enduring  conse- 
quences, for  weal  or  for  woe,  which  are  to 
result  from  the  struggle,  and  especially  to 
strengthen  our  reliance  on  the  Supreme  Be- 
ing for  the  final  triumph  of  the  right,  cannot 
but  be  well  for  us  all. 

The  birthday  of  Washington  and  the 
Christian  Sabbath  coinciding  this  year,  and 
suggesting  together  the  highest  interests  of 

157 


this  life  and  of  that  to  come,  is  most  propi- 
tious for  the  meeting  proposed.  —  Letter  to 
Alexander  Reed;  February  22,  1863. 

TRUTH  to  speak,  I  do  not  appreciate  this 
matter  of  rank  on  paper  as  you  officers 
do.  The  world  will  not  forget  that  you  fought 
the  battle  of  Stone  River,  and  it  will  never  care 
a  fig  whether  you  rank  General  Grant  on 
paper,  or  he  so  ranks  you.  —  Letter  to  Major- 
General  Rosecrans;  March  17,  1863. 

I  AM  told  you  have  at  least  thought  of  rais- 
ing a  negro  military  force.  In  my  opinion 
the  country  now  needs  no  specific  thing  so 
much  as  some  man  of  your  ability  and  posi-. 
tion  to  go  to  this  work.  When  I  speak  of 
your  position,  I  mean  that  of  an  eminent 
citizen  of  a  slave  State  and  himself  a  slave- 
holder. The  colored  population  is  the  great 
available  and  yet  unavailed  of  force  for  re- 
storing the  Union.  The  bare  sight  of  fifty 
thousand  armed  and  drilled  black  soldiers 
upon  the  banks  of  the  Mississippi  would  end 
the  rebellion  at  once;  and  who  doubts  that 
we  can  present  that  sight  if  we  but  take  hold 
in  earnest?  —  Letter  to  Governor  Andrew 
Johnson,  of  Tennessee;  March  26,  1863. 

WHEREAS,  it  is  the  duty  of  nations  as 
well  as  of  men  to  own  their  depen- 
dence upon  the  overruling  power  of  God;  to 
confess  their  sins  and  transgressions  in  humble 
158 


sorrow,  yet  with  assured  hope  that  genuine 
repentance  will  lead  to  mercy  and  pardon; 
and  to  recognize  the  sublime  truth,  announced 
in  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  proven  by  all 
history,  that  those  nations  only  are  blessed 
whose  God  is  the  Lord: 

And  insomuch  as  we  know  that  by  his 
divine  law  nations,  like  individuals,  are  sub- 
jected to  punishments  and  chastisements  in 
this  world,  may  we  not  justly  fear  that  the 
awful  calamity  of  civil  war  which  now  deso- 
lates the  land  may  be  but  a  punishment  in- 
flicted upon  us  for  our  presumptuous  sins,  to 
the  needful  end  of  our  national  reformation 
as  a  whole  people  ?  We  have  been  the  recipi- 
ents of  the  choicest  bounties  of  Heaven.  We 
have  been  preserved,  these  many  years,  in 
peace  and  prosperity.  We  have  grown  in 
numbers,  wealth,  and  power  as  no  other  na- 
tion has  ever  grown;  but  we  have  forgotten 
God.  We  have  forgotten  the  gracious  hand 
which  preserved  us  in  peace,  and  multiplied 
and  enriched  and  strengthened  us;  and  we 
have  vainly  imagined,  in  the  deceitfulness  of 
our  hearts,  that  all  these  blessings  were  pro- 
duced by  some  superior  wisdom  and  virtue 
of  our  own.  Intoxicated  with  unbroken  suc- 
cess, we  have  become  too  self-sufficient  to  feel 
the  necessity  of  redeeming  and  preserving 
grace,  too  proud  to  pray  to  the  God  that  made 
us: 

It  behooves  us,  then,  to  humble  ourselves 
before  the  offended  Power,  to  confess  our 

159 


national  sins,  and  to  pray  for  clemency  and 
forgiveness. — Proclamation  of  April  30, 
1863,  as  a  National  Fast  Day;  March  30, 
1863. 

I  UNDERSTAND  the  meeting  whose  reso- 
lutions I  am  considering  to  be  in  favor  of 
suppressing  the  rebellion  by  military  force  — 
by  armies.  Long  experience  has  shown  that 
armies  cannot  be  maintained  unless  desertion 
shall  be  punished  by  the  severe  penalty  of 
death.  The  case  requires,  and  the  law  and 
the  Constitution  sanction,  this  punishment. 
Must  I  shoot  a  simple-minded  soldier  boy 
who  deserts,  while  I  must  not  touch  a  hair  of 
a  wily  agitator  who  induces  him  to  desert? 
This  is  none  the  less  injurious  when  effected 
by  getting  a  father,  or  brother,  or  friend  into 
a  public  meeting,  and  there  working  upon  his 
feelings  till  he  is  persuaded  to  write  the  sol- 
dier boy  that  he  is  fighting  in  a  bad  cause, 
for  a  wicked  administration  of  a  contemptible 
government,  too  weak  to  arrest  and  punish 
him  if  he  shall  desert.  I  think  that,  in  such 
a  case,  to  silence  the  agitator  and  save  the  boy 
is  not  only  constitutional,  but  withal  a  great 
mercy.  —  Letter  to  Erastus  Corning  and 
Others;  June  12,  1863. 

YOU  claim  that  men  may,  if  they  choose, 
embarrass  those  whose  duty  it  is  to  com- 
bat a  giant  rebellion,  and  then  be  dealt  with 
in  turn,  only  as  if  there  were  no  rebellion. 
160 


The  Constitution  itself  rejects  this  view.  The 
military  arrests  and  detentions  which  have 
been  made,  including  those  of  Mr.  Vallandig- 
ham,  which  are  not  different  in  principle  from 
the  others,  have  been  for  prevention,  and 
not  for  punishment  —  as  injunctions  to  stay 
injury,  as  proceedings  to  keep  the  peace; 
and  hence,  like  proceedings  in  such  cases  and 
for  like  reasons,  they  have  not  been  accom- 
panied with  indictments,  or  trials  by  juries, 
nor  in  a  single  case  by  any  punishment  what- 
ever, beyond  what  is  purely  incidental  to  the 
prevention.  The  original  sentence  of  im- 
prisonment in  Mr.  Vallandigham's  case  was 
to  prevent  injury  to  the  military  service  only, 
and  the  modification  of  it  was  made  as  a  less 
disagreeable  mode  to  him  of  securing  the 
same  prevention.  .  .  . 

We  all  know  that  combinations,  armed  in 
some  instances,  to  resist  the  arrest  of  deserters 
began  several  months  ago;  that  more  recently 
the  like  has  appeared  in  resistance  to  the  en- 
rolment preparatory  to  a  draft;  and  that 
quite  a  number  of  assassinations  have  oc- 
curred from  the  same  animus.  These  had  to 
be  met  by  military  force,  and  this  again  has 
led  to  bloodshed  and  death.  And  now,  under 
a  sense  of  responsibility  more  weighty  and 
enduring  than  any  which  is  merely  official, 
I  solemnly  declare  my  belief  that  this  hin- 
drance of  the  military,  including  maiming  and 
murder,  is  due  to  the  course  in  which  Mr. 
Vallandigham  has  been  engaged  in  a  greater 
n  161 


degree  than  to  any  other  cause;  and  it  is  due 
to  him  personally  in  a  greater  degree  than  to 
any  other  one  man.  .  .  . 

With  all  this  before  their  eyes,  the  conven- 
tion you  represent  have  nominated  Mr.  Val- 
landigham  for  governor  of  Ohio,  and  both 
they  and  you  have  declared  the  purpose  to 
sustain  the  National  Union  by  all  constitu- 
tional means.  But  of  course  they  and  you  in 
common  reserve  to  yourselves  to  decide  what 
are  constitutional  means;  and,  unlike  the 
Albany  meeting,  you  omit  to  state  or  intimate 
that  in  your  opinion  an  army  is  a  constitu- 
tional means  of  saving  the  Union  against  a 
rebellion,  or  even  to  intimate  that  you  are 
conscious  of  an  existing  rebellion  being  in 
progress  with  the  avowed  object  of  destroy- 
ing that  very  Union.  At  the  same  time  your 
nominee  for  governor,  in  whose  behalf  you 
appeal,  is  known  to  you  and  to  the  world  to 
declare  against  the  use  of  an  army  to  suppress 
the  rebellion.  Your  own  attitude,  therefore, 
encourages  desertion,  resistance  to  the  draft, 
and  the  like,  because  it  teaches  those  who 
incline  to  desert  and  to  escape  the  draft  to 
believe  it  is  your  purpose  to  protect  them,  and 
to  hope  that  you  will  become  strong  enough 
to  do  so.  ... 

I  send  you  duplicates  of  this  letter  in  order 
that  you,  or  a  majority  of  you,  may,  if  you 
choose,  indorse  your  names  upon  one  of  them 
and  return  it  thus  indorsed  to  me  with  the 
understanding  that  those  signing  are  thereby 
162 


committed  to  the  following  propositions  and 
to  nothing  else: 

1.  That  there  is  now  a  rebellion  in  the 
United  States,   the  object  and  tendency  of 
which  is  to  destroy  the  National  Union;  and 
that,  in  your  opinion,  an  army  and  navy  are 
constitutional    means   for   suppressing   that 
rebellion; 

2.  That  no  one  of  you  will  do  anything 
which,   in  his  own  judgment,   will  tend  to 
hinder  the  increase,  or  favor  the  decrease,  or 
lessen  the  efficiency  of  the  army  or  navy  while 
engaged  in  the  effort  to  suppress  that  rebel- 
lion; and 

3.  That  each  of  you  will,  in  his  sphere,  do 
all  he  can  to  have  the  officers,  soldiers,  and 
seamen  of  the  army  and  navy,  while  engaged 
in  the  effort  to  suppress  the  rebellion,  paid, 
fed,  clad,  and  otherwise  well  provided  for  and 
supported. 

And  with  the  further  understanding  that 
upon  receiving  the  letter  and  names  thus  in- 
dorsed, I  will  cause  them  to  be  published, 
which  publication  shall  be,  within  itself,  a 
revocation  of  the  order  in  relation  to  Mr.  Val- 
landigham.  —  Letter  to  Committee  of  Ohio 
Democrats;  June  29,  1863. 


TT  7E  are  contending  with  an  enemy,  who, 
VV    as    I   understand,  drives  every  able- 
bodied  man  he  can  reach  into  his  ranks,  very 
much  as  a  butcher  drives  bullocks  into  a 
163 


slaughter-pen.  No  time  is  wasted,  no  argu- 
ment is  used.  This  produces  an  army  which 
will  soon  turn  upon  our  now  victorious  sol- 
diers, already  in  the  field,  if  they  shall  not  be 
sustained  by  recruits  as  they  should  be.  It 
produces  an  army  with  a  rapidity  not  to  be 
matched  by  our  side,  if  we  first  waste  time  to 
reexperiment  with  the  volunteer  system  al- 
ready deemed  by  Congress,  and  palpably,  in 
fact,  so  far  exhausted  as  to  be,  inadequate, 
and  then  more  time  to  obtain  a  court  decision 
as  to  whether  a  law  is  constitutional  which 
requires  a  part  of  those  now  not  in  the  service 
to  go  to  the  aid  of  those  who  are  already  in 
it,  and  still  more  time  to  determine  with  abso- 
lute certainty  that  we  get  those  who  are  to 
go  in  the  precisely  legal  proportion  to  those 
who  are  not  to  go.  My  purpose  is  to  be  in 
my  action  just  and  constitutional,  and  yet 
practical,  in  performing  the  important  duty 
with  which  I  am  charged,  of  maintaining  the 
unity  and  the  free  principles  of  our  common 
country.  —  Letter  to  Governor  Horatio  Sey- 
mour, of  New  York;  August  7,  1863. 


TOOME  of]  you  say  you  will  not  fight  to  free 
LO  negroes.  Some  of  them  seem  willing  to 
fight  for  you ;  but  no  matter.  Fight  you,  then, 
exclusively  to  save  the  Union.  I  issued  the 
proclamation  on  purpose  to  aid  you  in  saving 
the  Union.  Whenever  you  shall  have  con- 
quered all  resistance  to  the  Union,  if  I  shall 
164 


urge  you  to  continue  fighting,  it  will  be  an  apt 
time  then  for  you  to  declare  you  will  not  fight 
to  free  negroes. 

I  thought  that  in  your  struggle  for  the 
Union,  to  whatever  extent  the  negroes  should 
cease  helping  the  enemy,  to  that  extent  it 
weakened  the  enemy  in  its  resistance  to  you. 
Do  you  think  differently?  I  thought  that 
whatever  negroes  can  be  got  to  do  as  soldiers, 
leaves  just  so  much  less  for  white  soldiers  to 
do  in  saving  the  Union.  Does  it  appear  other- 
wise to  you?  But  negroes,  like  other  people, 
act  upon  motives.  Why  should  they  do  any- 
thing for  us  if  we  will  do  nothing  for  them? 
If  they  stake  their  lives  for  us  they  must  be 
prompted  by  the  strongest  motive,  even  the 
promise  of  freedom.  And  the  promise,  be- 
ing made,  must  be  kept. 

The  signs  look  better.  The  Father  of 
Waters  again  goes  unvexed  to  the  sea.  Thanks 
to  the  great  Northwest  for  it.  Nor  yet  wholly 
to  them.  Three  hundred  miles  up  they  met 
New  England,  Empire,  Keystone,  and  Jersey, 
hewing  their  way  right  and  left.  The  sunny 
South,  too,  in  more  colors  than  one,  also  lent 
a  hand.  On  the  spot,  their  part  of  the  history 
was  jotted  down  in  black  and  white.  The 
job  was  a  great  national  one,  and  let  none  be 
banned  who  bore  an  honorable  part  in  it. 
And  while  those  who  have  cleared  the  great 
river  may  well  be  proud,  even  that  is  not  all. 
It  is  hard  to  say  that  anything  has  been  more 
bravely  and  well  done  than  at  Antietam, 

165 


Murfreesboro',  Gettysburg,  and  on  many 
fields  of  lesser  note.  Nor  must  Uncle  Sam's 
web-feet  be  forgotten.  At  all  the  watery 
margins  they  have  been  present.  Not  only 
on  the  deep  sea,  the  broad  bay,  and  the  rapid 
river,  but  also  up  the  narrow,  muddy  bayou, 
and  wherever  the  ground  was  a  little  damp, 
they  have  been  and  made  their  tracks.  Thanks 
to  all :  for  the  great  republic  —  for  the  prin- 
ciple it  lives  by  and  keeps  alive  —  for  man's 
vast  future  —  thanks  to  all. 

Peace  does  not  appear  so  distant  as  it  did. 
I  hope  it  will  come  soon,  and  come  to  stay, 
and  so  come  as  to  be  worth  the  keeping  in  all 
future  time.  It  will  then  have  been  proved 
that  among  free  men  there  can  be  no  success- 
ful appeal  from  the  ballot  to  the  bullet,  and 
that  they  who  take  such  appeal  are  sure  to 
lose  their  case  and  pay  the  cost.  And  then 
there  will  be  some  black  men  who  can  remem- 
ber that  with  silent  tongue,  and  clenched 
teeth,  and  steady  eye,  and  well-poised  bayonet 
they  have  helped  mankind  on  to  this  great 
consummation,  while  I  fear  there  will  be 
some  white  ones  unable  to  forget  that  with 
malignant  heart  and  deceitful  speech  they 
strove  to  hinder  it. — Letter  to  James  C. 
Conkling  to  be  read  at  Union  meeting  in 
Springfield,  III;  August  26,  1863. 

FOURSCORE  and  seven  years  ago  our 
fathers  brought  forth  on  this  continent 
a  new  nation,  conceived  in  liberty,  and  dedi- 
166 


cated  to  the  proposition  that  all  men  are 
created  equal. 

Now  we  are  engaged  in  a  great  civil  war, 
testing  whether  that  nation,  or  any  nation  so 
conceived  and  so  dedicated,  can  long  endure. 
We  are  met  on  a  great  battle-field  of  that  war. 
We  have  come  to  dedicate  a  portion  of  that 
field  as  a  final  resting-place  for  those  who 
here  gave  their  lives  that  that  nation  might 
live.  It  is  altogether  fitting  and  proper  that 
we  should  do  this. 

But,  in  a  larger  sense,  we  cannot  dedicate 

—  we  cannot  consecrate  —  we  cannot  hallow 

—  this  ground.    The  brave  men,  living  and 
dead,  who  struggled  here,  have  consecrated 
it  far  above  our  poor  power  to  add  or  detract. 
The  world  will  little  note  nor  long  remember 
what  we  say  here,  but  it  can  never  forget  what 
they  did  here.    It  is  for  us,  the  living,  rather, 
to  be  dedicated  here  to  the  unfinished  work 
which  they  who  fought  here  have  thus  far  so 
nobly  advanced.    It  is  rather  for  us  to  be  here 
dedicated  to  the  great  task  remaining  before 
us  —  that  from  these  honored  dead  we  take 
increased  devotion  to  that  cause  for  which 
they  gave  the  last  full  measure  of  devotion; 
that  we  here  highly  resolve  that  these  dead 
shall  not  have  died  in  vain;  that  this  nation, 
under  God,  shall  have  a  new  birth  of  freedom ; 
and  that  government  of  the  people,  by  the 
people,  for  the  people,  shall  not  perish  from 
the  earth.  —  Dedication  of  the  National  Ceme- 
tery at  Gettysburg,  Pa.;  November  19,  1863. 

167 


THE  strongest  bond  of  human  sympathy, 
outside  of  the  family  relation,  should 
be  one  uniting  all  working  people,  of  all  na- 
tions, and  tongues,  and  kindreds.  Nor  should 
this  lead  to  a  war  upon  property,  or  the  own- 
ers of  property.  Property  is  the  fruit  of  labor; 
property  is  desirable;  is  a  positive  good  in 
the  world.  That  some  should  be  rich  shows 
that  others  may  become  rich,  and  hence  is 
just  encouragement  to  industry  and  enter- 
prise. Let  not  him  who  is  houseless  pull 
down  the  house  of  another,  but  let  him  work 
diligently  and  build  one  for  himself,  thus  by 
example  assuring  that  his  own  shall  be  safe 
from  violence  when  built.  —  Remarks  to  a 
Committee  of  New  York  Workingmen;  March 
24,  1864. 


THE  world  has  never  had  a  good  defini- 
tion of  the  word  liberty,  and  the  Ameri- 
can people,  just  now,  are  much  in  want  of  one. 
We  all  declare  for  liberty;  but  in  using  the 
same  word  we  do  not  all  mean  the  same  thing. 
With  some  the  word  liberty  may  mean  for 
each  man  to  do  as  he  pleases  with  himself, 
and  the  product  of  his  labor;  while  with 
others  the  same  word  may  mean  for  some 
men  to  do  as  they  please  with  other  men,  and 
the  product  of  other  men's  labor.  Here  are 
two,  not  only  different,  but  incompatible 
things,  called  by  the  same  name,  liberty.  And 
it  follows  that  each  of  the  things  is,  by  the 
168 


respective  parties,  called  by  two  different  and 
incompatible  names  —  liberty  and  tyranny. 

The  shepherd  drives  the  wolf  from  the 
sheep's  throat,  for  which  the  sheep  thanks 
the  shepherd  as  his  liberator,  while  the  wolf 
denounces  him  for  the  same  act,  as  the  de- 
stroyer of  liberty,  especially  as  the  sheep  was 
a  black  one.  Plainly,  the  sheep  and  the  wolf 
are  not  agreed  upon  a  definition  of  the  word 
liberty;  and  precisely  the  same  difference 
prevails  to-day  among  us  human  creatures, 
even  in  the  North,  and  all  professing  to  love 
liberty.  Hence  we  behold  the  process  by 
which  thousands  are  daily  passing  from  under 
the  yoke  of  bondage  hailed  by  some  as  the 
advance  of  liberty,  and  bewailed  by  others 
as  the  destruction  of  all  liberty.  —  Remarks 
at  a  Sanitary  Fair  in  Baltimore;  April  18, 
1864. 


IN  response  to  the  preamble  and  resolu- 
tions of  the  American  Baptist  Home  Mis- 
sion Society,  which  you  did  me  the  honor  to 
present,  I  can  only  thank  you  for  thus  adding 
to  the  effective  and  almost  unanimous  support 
which  the  Christian  communities  are  so  zeal- 
ously giving  to  the  country  and  to  liberty. 
Indeed,  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  how  it  could 
be  otherwise  with  any  one  professing  Christi- 
anity, or  even  having  ordinary  perceptions  of 
right  and  wrong.  To  read  in  the  Bible,  as 
the  word  of  God  himself,  that  "In  the  sweat 
169 


of  thy  face  shalt  thou  eat  bread,"  and  to 
preach  therefrom  that,  "In  the  sweat  of  other 
men's  faces  shalt  thou  eat  bread,"  to  my  mind 
can  scarcely  be  reconciled  with  honest  sincer- 
ity. When  brought  to  my  final  reckoning, 
may  I  have  to  answer  for  robbing  no  man  of 
his  goods;  yet  more  tolerable  even  this,  than 
for  robbing  one  of  himself  and  all  that  was 
his.  When,  a  year  or  two  ago,  those  pro- 
fessedly holy  men  of  the  South  met  in  the 
semblance  of  prayer  and  devotion,  and,  in 
the  name  of  him  who  said,  "As  ye  would  all 
men  should  do  unto  you,  do  ye  even  so  unto 
them,"  appealed  to  the  Christian  world  to  aid 
them  in  doing  to  a  whole  race  of  men  as  they 
would  have  no  man  do  unto  themselves,  to  my 
thinking  they  contemned  and  insulted  God 
and  his  church  far  more  than  did  Satan  when 
he  tempted  the  Saviour  with  the  kingdoms  of 
the  earth.  The  devil's  attempt  was  no  more 
false,  and  far  less  hypocritical.  But  let  me 
forbear,  remembering  it  is  also  written, 
"Judge  not  lest  ye  be  judged."  —  Letter  to 
Committee  of  Baptists ;  May  30,  1864. 

I  AM  always  for  the  man  who  wishes  to 
work.  —  Endorsement  of  Application  for 
Employment;  August  15,  1864. 

THERE  may  be  some  inequalities  in  the 
practical  application  of  our  system.    It 
is  fair  that  each  man  shall  pay  taxes  in  exact 
proportion  to  the  value  of  his  property;   but 
170 


if  we  should  wait,  before  collecting  a  tax, 
to  adjust  the  taxes  upon  each  man  in  exact 
proportion  with  every  other  man,  we  should 
never  collect  any  tax  at  all.  There  may  be 
mistakes  made  sometimes;  things  may  be 
done  wrong,  while  the  officers  of  the  govern- 
ment do  all  they  can  to  prevent  mistakes. 
But  I  beg  of  you,  as  citizens  of  this  great  re- 
public, not  to  let  your  minds  be  carried  off 
from  the  great  work  we  have  before  us.  This 
struggle  is  too  large  for  you  to  be  diverted 
from  it  by  any  small  matter.  When  you  re- 
turn to  your  homes,  rise  up  to  the  height  of 
a  generation  of  men  worthy  of  a  free  govern- 
ment, and  we  will  carry  out  the  great  work 
we  have  commenced.  —  Remarks  to  the 
i64th  Ohio  Regiment;  August  18,  1864. 

IN  regard  to  this  great  book,  I  have  but  to 
say,  it  is  the  best  gift  God  has  given  to 
man.  All  the  good  Saviour  gave  to  the  world 
was  communicated  through  this  book.  But 
for  it  we  could  not  know  right  from  wrong. 
All  things  most  desirable  for  man's  welfare, 
here  and  hereafter,  are  to  be  found  portrayed 
in  it.  To  you  I  return  my  most  sincere  thanks 
for  the  very  elegant  copy  of  the  great  Book  of 
God  which  you  present.  —  Remarks  to  a 
Negro  Delegation;  September  7,  1864. 

WE  cannot  have  free  government  without 
elections;    and  if  the  rebellion  could 
force  us  to  forego  or  postpone  a  national  elec- 
171 


tion,  it  might  fairly  claim  to  have  already 
conquered  and  ruined  us.  The  strife  of  the 
election  is  but  human  nature  practically  ap- 
plied to  the  facts  of  the  case.  What  has  oc- 
curred in  this  case  must  ever  recur  in  similar 
cases.  Human  nature  will  not  change.  In 
any  future  great  national  trial,'  compared 
with  the  men  of  this,  we  shall  have  as  weak 
and  as  strong,  as  silly  and  as  wise,  as  bad  and 
as  good.  Let  us,  therefore,  study  the  incidents 
of  this  as  philosophy  to  learn  wisdom  from, 
and  none  of  them  as  wrongs  to  be  revenged. 
But  the  election,  along  with  its  incidental 
and  undesirable  strife,  has  done  good  too. 
It  has  demonstrated  that  a  people's  govern- 
ment can  sustain  a  national  election  in  the 
midst  of  a  great  civil  war.  Until  now,  it  has 
not  been  known  to  the  world  that  this  was  a 
possibility.  It  shows,  also,  how  sound  and 
how  strong  we  still  are.  It  shows  that,  even 
among  candidates  of  the  same  party,  he  who 
is  most  devoted  to  the  Union  and  most  op- 
posed to  treason  can  receive  most  of  the 
people's  votes.  It  shows,  also,  to  the  extent 
yet  known,  that  we  have  more  men  now  than 
we  had  when  the  war  began.  Gold  is  good 
in  its  place,  but  living,  brave,  patriotic  men 
are  better  than  gold. 

But  the  rebellion  continues,  and  now  that 
the  election  is  over,  may  not  all  having  a  com- 
mon interest  reunite  in  a  common  effort  to 
save  our  common  country?  For  my  own 
part,  I  have  striven  and  shall  strive  to  avoid 
172 


placing  any  obstacle  in  the  way.  So  long  as 
I  have  been  here  I  have  not  willingly  planted 
a  thorn  in  any  man's  bosom.  While  I  am 
deeply  sensible  to  the  high  compliment  of  a 
reelection,  and  duly  grateful,  as  I  trust,  to 
almighty  God  for  having  directed  my  country- 
men to  a  right  conclusion,  as  I  think,  for  their 
own  good,  it  adds  nothing  to  my  satisfaction 
that  any  other  man  may  be  disappointed  or 
pained  by  the  result. 

May  I  ask  those  who  have  not  differed  with 
me  to  join  with  me  in  this  same  spirit  toward 
those  who  have  ?  —  Remarks  in  Response  to  a 
Serenade;  November  10,  1864. 

DEAR  MADAM,  —  I  have  been  shown  in 
the  files  of  the  War  Department  a  state- 
ment of  the  Adjutant-General  of  Massachu- 
setts that  you  are  the  mother  of  five  sons  who 
have  died  gloriously  on  the  field  of  battle.  I 
feel  how  weak  and  fruitless  must  be  any  words 
of  mine  which  should  attempt  to  beguile  you 
from  the  grief  of  a  loss  so  overwhelming.  But 
I  cannot  refrain  from  tendering  to  you  the 
consolation  that  may  be  found  in  the  thanks 
of  the  Republic  they  died  to  save.  I  pray  that 
our  heavenly  Father  may  assuage  the  anguish 
of  your  bereavement,  and  leave  you  only  the 
cherished  memory  of  the  loved  and  lost,  and 
the  solemn  pride  that  must  be  yours  to  have 
laid  so  costly  a  sacrifice  upon  the  altar  of  free- 
dom. —  Letter  to  Mrs.  Bixby;  November  21, 
1864. 

173 


IT  seems  that  there  is  now  no  organized 
military  force  of  the  enemy  in  Missouri, 
and  yet  that  destruction  of  property  and  life 
is  rampant  everywhere.  Is  not  the  cure  for 
this  within  easy  reach  of  the  people  them- 
selves? It  cannot  but  be  that  every  man  not 
naturally  a  robber  or  cut-throat  would  gladly 
put  an  end  to  this  state  of  things.  A  large 
majority  in  every  locality  must  feel  alike  upon 
this  subject;  and  if  so,  they  only  need  to  reach 
an  understanding,  one  with  another.  Each 
leaving  all  others  alone  solves  the  problem; 
and  surely  each  would  do  this  but  for  his  ap- 
prehension that  others  will  not  leave  him 
alone.  Cannot  this  mischievous  distrust  be 
removed?  Let  neighborhood  meetings  be 
everywhere  called  and  held,  of  all  entertain- 
ing a  sincere  purpose  for  mutual  security  in 
the  future,  whatever  they  may  heretofore  have 
thought,  said  or  done  about  the  war,  or  about 
anything  else.  Let  all  such  meet,  and,  waiv- 
ing all  else,  pledge  each  to  cease  harassing 
others,  and  to  make  common  cause  against 
whoever  persists  in  making,  aiding,  or  en- 
couraging further  disturbance.  The  practical 
means  they  will  best  know  how  to  adopt  and 
apply.  At  such  meetings  old  friendships  will 
cross  the  memory,  and  honor  and  Christian 
charity  will  come  in  to  help.  —  Letter  to  Gov- 
ernor Thomas  C.  Fletcher;  February  20, 
1865. 


174 


'VJ  EITHER  party  expected  for  the  war  the 
•A-^l  magnitude  or  the  duration  which  it 
has  already  attained.  Neither  anticipated 
that  the  cause  of  the  conflict  might  cease  with, 
or  even  before,  the  conflict  itself  should  cease. 
Each  looked  for  an  easier  triumph,  and  a  re- 
sult less  fundamental  and  astounding.  Both 
read  the  same  Bible,  and  pray  to  the  same 
God;  and  each  invokes  his  aid  against  the 
other.  It  may  seem  strange  that  any  men 
should  dare  to  ask  a  just  God's  assistance  in 
wringing  their  bread  from  the  sweat  of  other 
men's  faces;  but  let  us  judge  not,  that  we  be 
not  judged.  The  prayers  of  both  could  not 
be  answered  —  that  of  neither  has  been 
answered  fully. 

The  Almighty  has  his  own  purposes.  "Woe 
unto  the  world  because  of  offenses',  for  it 
must  needs  be  that  offenses  come;  but  woe 
to  that  man  by  whom  the  offense  cometh." 
If  we  shall  suppose  that  American  slavery 
is  one  of  those  offenses  which,  in  the  provi- 
dence of  God,  must  needs  come,  but  which, 
having  continued  through  his  appointed  time, 
he  now  wills  to  remove,  and  that  he  gives  to 
both  North  and  South  this  terrible  war,  as 
the  woe  due  to  those  by  whom  the  offense 
came,  shall  we  discern  therein  any  departure 
from  those  divine  attributes  which  the  be- 
lievers in  a  living  God  always  ascribe  to  him? 
Fondly  do  we  hope  —  fervently  do  we  pray  — 
that  this  mighty  scourge  of  war  may  speedily 
pass  away.  Yet,  if  God  wills  that  it  continue 

175 


until  all  the  wealth  piled  by  the  bond- 
man's two  hundred  and  fifty  years  of  unre- 
quited toil  shall  be  sunk,  and  until  every  drop 
of  blood  drawn  with  the  lash  shall  be  paid  by 
another  drawn  with  the  sword,  as  was  said 
three  thousand  years  ago,  so  still  it  must  be 
said,  "The  judgments  of  the  Lord  are  true 
and  righteous  altogether." 

With  malice  toward  none;  with  charity  for 
all;  with  firmness  in  the  right,  as  God  gives 
us  to  see  the  right,  let  us  strive  on  to  finish  the 
work  we  are  in;  to  bind  up  the  nation's 
wounds;  to  care  for  him  who  shall  have 
borne  the  battle,  and  for  his  widow,  and  his 
orphan  —  to  do  all  which  may  achieve  and 
cherish  a  just  and  lasting  peace  among  our- 
selves, and  with  all  nations.  —  Second  In- 
augural Address;  March  4,  1865. 


EVERY  one  likes  a  compliment.  Thank 
you  for  yours  on  my  little  notification 
speech  and  on  the  recent  inaugural  address. 
I  expect  the  latter  to  wear  as  well  as  —  per- 
haps better  than  —  anything  I  have  pro- 
duced; but  I  believe  it  is  not  immediately 
popular.  Men  are  not  flattered  by  being 
shown  that  there  has  been  a  difference  of 
purpose  between  the  Almighty  and  them. 
To  deny  it,  however,  in  this  case,  is  to  deny 
that  there  is  a  God  governing  the  world.  It 
is  a  truth  which  I  thought  needed  to  be  told, 
and  as  whatever  of  humiliation  there  is  in  it 
176 


falls  most  directly  on  myself,  I  thought  others 
might  afford  for  me  to  tell  it.  —  Letter  to 
Thurlow  Weed;  March  15,  1865. 

THERE  are  but  few  aspects  of  this  great 
war  on  which  I  have  not  already  ex- 
pressed my  views  by  speaking  or  writing. 
There  is  one  —  the  recent  effort  of  "our  er- 
ring brethren,"  sometimes  so  called,  to  em- 
ploy the  slaves  in  their  armies.  The  great 
question  with  them  has  been,  "Will  the  negro 
fight  for  them?"  They  ought  to  know  better 
than  we,  and  doubtless  do  know  better  than 
we.  I  may  incidentally  remark  that,  having 
in  my  life  heard  many  arguments  —  or  strings 
of  words  meant  to  pass  for  arguments  — 
intended  to  show  that  the  negro  ought  to  be 
a  slave  —  if  he  shall  now  really  fight  to  keep 
himself  a  slave,  it  will  be  a  far  better  argu- 
ment why  he  should  remain  a  slave  than  I 
have  ever  before  heard.  He,  perhaps,  ought 
to  be  a  slave  if  he  desires  it  ardently  enough 
to  fight  for  it.  Or,  if  one  out  of  four  will,  for 
his  own  freedom,  fight  to  keep  the  other  three 
in  slavery,  he  ought  to  be  a  slave  for  his  sel- 
fish meanness.  I  have  always  thought  that 
all  men  should  be  free;  but  if  any  should  be 
slaves,  it  should  be  first  those  who  desire  it 
for  themselves,  and  secondly  those  who  desire 
it  for  others.  Whenever  I  hear  any  one  argu- 
ing for  slavery,  I  feel  a  strong  impulse  to  see 
it  tried  on  him  personally.  —  Remarks  to  an 
Indiana  Regiment;  March  17,  1865. 

12  I77 


BY  these  recent  successes  the  reinaugura- 
tion  of  the  national  authority  —  recon- 
struction —  which  has  had  a  large  share  of 
thought  from  the  first,  is  pressed  much  more 
closely  upon  our  attention.  It  is  fraught  with 
great  difficulty.  Unlike  a  case  of  war  between 
independent  nations,  there  is  no  authorized 
organ  for  us  to  treat  with  —  no  one  man  has 
authority  to  give  up  the  rebellion  for  any 
other  man.  We  simply  must  begin  with  and 
mold  from  disorganized  and  discordant  ele- 
ments. Nor  is  it  a  small  additional  embar- 
rassment that  we,  the  loyal  people,  differ 
among  ourselves  as  to  the  mode,  manner,  and 
measure  of  reconstruction.  As  a  general  rule, 
I  abstain  from  reading  the  reports  of  attacks 
upon  myself,  wishing  not  to  be  provoked  by 
that  to  which  I  cannot  properly  offer  an  an- 
swer. In  spite  of  this  precaution,  however, 
it  comes  to  my  knowledge  that  I  am  much 
censured  for  some  supposed  agency  in  setting 
up  and  seeking  to  sustain  the  new  State  gov- 
ernment of  Louisiana.  .  .  . 

We  all  agree  that  the  seceded  States,  so 
called,  are  out  of  their  proper  practical  rela- 
tion with  the  Union,  and  that  the  sole  object 
of  the  government,  civil  and  military,  in  re- 
gard to  those  States  is  to  again  get  them  into 
that  proper  practical  relation.  I  believe  that 
it  is  not  only  possible,  but  in  fact  easier,  to 
do  this  without  deciding  or  even  considering 
whether  these  States  have  ever  been  out  of 
the  Union,  than  with  it.  Finding  themselves 
178 


safely  at  home,  it  would  be  utterly  immaterial 
whether  they  had  ever  been  abroad.  Let  us 
all  join  in  doing  the  acts  necessary  to  restor- 
ing the  proper  practical  relations  between 
these  States  and  the  Union,  and  each  forever 
after  innocently  indulge  his  own  opinion 
whether  in  doing  the  acts  he  brought  the 
States  from  without  into  the  Union,  or  only 
gave  them  proper  assistance,  they  never  hav- 
ing been  out  of  it.  ... 

Now,  if  we  reject  and  spurn  them  [Louisi- 
anans  asking  for  State  government  under  the 
Union],  we  do  our  utmost  to  disorganize  and 
disperse  them.  We,  in  effect,  say  to  the  white 
man:  You  are  worthless  or  worse;  we  will 
neither  help  you,  nor  be  helped  by  you.  To 
the  blacks  we  say :  This  cup  of  liberty  which 
these,  your  old  masters,  hold  to  your  lips  we 
will  dash  from  you,  and  leave  you  to  the 
chances  of  gathering  the  spilled  and  scattered 
contents  in  some  vague  and  undefined  when, 
where,  and  how.  If  this  course,  discouraging 
and  paralyzing  both  white  and  black,  has  any 
tendency  to  bring  Louisiana  into  proper  prac- 
tical relations  with  the  Union,  I  have  so  far 
been  unable  to  perceive  it.  If,  on  the  con- 
trary, we  recognize  and  sustain  the  new  gov- 
ernment of  Louisiana,  the  converse  of  all  this 
is  made  true.  We  encourage  the  hearts  and 
nerve  the  arms  of  the  12,000  to  adhere  to  their 
work,  and  argue  for  it,  and  proselyte  for  it, 
and  fight  for  it,  and  feed  it,  and  grow  it,  and 
ripen  it  to  a  complete  success.  The  colored 
179 


man,  too,  in  seeing  all  united  for  him,  is  in- 
spired with  vigilance,  and  energy,  and  daring, 
to  the  same  end.  Grant  that  he  desires  the 
elective  franchise,  will  he  not  attain  it  sooner 
by  saving  the  already  advanced  steps  toward 
it  than  by  running  backward  over  them? 
Concede  that  the  new  government  of  Louisi- 
ana is  only  to  what  it  should  be  as  the  egg  is 
to  the  fowl,  we  shall  sooner  have  the  fowl  by 
hatching  the  egg  than  by  smashing  it.  — 
Speech  on  Reconstruction;  April  n,  1865. 


180 


INDEX 

[NOTE:  L.  is  the  abbreviation  of  Lincoln.] 

ABOLITION.     See  Slavery. 

Agriculture,  advantages  of  thorough  cultivation,  89,  94 ; 
agricultural  fairs  a  social  bond,  89. 

Alton,  111.,  debate  with  Douglas  at,  72. 

Army,  The  (for  Negro  soldiers,  see  Slavery),  on 
military  dictatorship,  156;  L.  disparages  contention 
about  rank,  140, 158  ;  instigators  of  desertion  worthier 
of  punishment  than  deserters,  160;  draft  is  constitu- 
tional, 163 ;  triumphs  of,  165  ;  soldiers  consecrate 
their  lives,  166. 

Baltimore,  Md.,  remarks  at  sanitary  fair  in,  168. 

Banks.    See  Finance. 

Baptists,  letter  to  committee  of,  169. 

Bible,  The,  all  sufficient  for  present  and  future  life, 

171. 

Bixby,  Mrs.,  letter  to,  173. 

Bloomington,  111., speech  before  First  Republican  Con- 
vention at,  43. 

Border  State  Representatives,  appeal  to,  141. 

Browning,  O.  H.,  letter  to,  134. 

Buchanan,  James,  accepts  doctrine  of  "  State  equality," 
47  ;  conspirator  in  re  Dred  Scott  decision,  53. 

Canisius,  Dr.  Theodore,  letter  to,  80. 

Capital.     Sre  Labor. 

Cass,  Lewis,  burlesque  of  his  military  career,  21. 

Charleston,  U.f  debate  with  Douglas  at,  65. 

Chicago,  111.,  speech  at  Republican  banquet  in,  Dec. 

10,  1856,  46 ;  speech  at,  July   10,  1858,  54 ;  remarks 

to  representatives  of  churches  in,  145. 
Christian  Commission,  L.  endorses,  157. 
Cincinnati,  O.,  speech  at,  Sept.  17,  1859,  83  ;  remarks 

to  Germans  at,  Feb.  12.  1861,  117. 

181 


Clay,  Henry,  eulogy  of,  25 ;  in  favor  of  gradual  eman- 
cipation, 25,  40. 

Clinton,  111.,  speech  at,  61. 

Columbus,  O.,  speech  at,  82. 

Condolence,  letter  of,  to  Miss  Fannie  McCullough, 
153;  letter  of,  to  Mrs.  Bixby,  173. 

Congress,  speech  in,  on  President  Polk,  15  ;  speech  in, 
on  internal  improvements,  16  ;  speech  in,  on  military 
heroes,  20. 

Conkling,  James  C.,  letter  to,  164. 

Constitution,  The.     Sec  Slavery. 

Cooper  Union,  New  York,  speech  at,  104. 

Corning,  Erastus,  and  others,  letter  to,  160. 

Crittenden,  J.  J.,  letter  to,  76. 

Declaration  of  Independence  {see  also  Slavery), 
enemies  of,  78 ;  valid  for  all  time,  79 ;  L.  would  be 
assassinated  rather  than  give  up  its  principles,  122 ; 
hope  of  the  country  and  the  world,  122. 

Delahay,  M.  W.,  letter  to,  79 

Democratic  Party  (see  also  Douglas,  Stephen  A.), 
Whigs  contrasted  with  Democnvs  4;  in  New  York 
an  "equally  divided  gang  of  tugs,"  21;  has  ex- 
changed coats  with  Republican  party,  77  ;  puts  dollar 
before  the  man,  77  bushwhacking  tactics  of,  in. 

Discoveries,  Inventions,  and  Improvements,  lecture 
on,  96. 

Divine  Will,  meditation  on  the,  150. 

Douglas,  Senator  Stephen  A.,  L.  attacks  his  popular 
sovereignty  theory,  34 ;  L.  replies  to  him  at  Spring- 
field, June  26,  1857,  48 ;  his  version  of  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence,  50 ;  conspirator  in  re  Dred 
Scott  decision,  53  :  L.  replies  to  him  at  Chicago, 
July  10,  1858,  54  ;  L.  contrasts  himself  with,  59  ;  de- 
bate with  L.  at  Jonesboro,  62 ;  debate  with  L.  at 
Charleston,  65  ;  debate  with  L.  at  Quincy,  70 ;  debate 
with  L.  at  Alton,  72;  dangerous  enemy  of  liberty, 
81  ;  contrasted  with  Jefferson,  82  ;  L.  denounces 
his  parallel  between  negro  and  crocodile,  83,  84,  no. 

Dred  Scott  Decision.    See  Slavery. 

Durley,  Williamson,  letter  to,  n. 

Education,  basis  of  enduring  prosperity,  93,  95. 
Edwardsville,  111.,  speech  at,  61. 
Emancipation.     See  Slavery. 
Emancipation  Proclamation,  Preliminary,  149. 

Fashion,  influence  of,  6. 

Fast  Day,  proclamation  of,  March  30,  1863,  158. 

182 


Finance,  L.  in  candidacy  for  Illinois  legislature  an- 
nounces himself  in  favor  of  national  bank,  i ;  L.  op- 
poses examination  of  State  Bank  without  legislative 
authority,  i  ;  tax  on  bank  circulation,  154 ;  necessary 
inequalities  in  taxation,  170. 

Fisher,  C.  H.,  letter  to,  115. 

Fletcher,  Governor  Thomas  C.,  letter  to,  174. 

"  Fooling  the  People,"  remark  on,  61. 

Free  Trade.     See  Tariff. 

Fremont,  General  John  C.,  L.  opposes  his  order  of 
military  emancipation,  135. 

Fugitive  Slave  Law.    See  Slavery. 

Galena,  111.,  speech  at,  44. 

Galesburg,  111.,  debate  with  Douglas  at,  66. 

Galloway,  Samuel,  letter  to,  80. 

Gentry,  Matthew  (an  insane  friend  of  L.),  poem  on,  13. 

Gettysburg,  Pa.,  dedication  of  National  Cemetery  at, 
166. 

Government  (see  also  Slavery),  object  of,  to  secure 
to  labor  its  product,  9  ;  notes  on,  27  ;  rests  on  public 
opinion,  46  ;  central  idea  of,  is  human  equality,  46  ; 
L.  endorses  principle  of  greatest  good  to  greatest  num- 
ber, 118 ;  supreme  control  should  be  vested  in  one 
person,  136  ;  liberty  versus  tyranny,  168  ;  elections  a 
necessity  of  free,  171. 

Greeley,  Horace,  letter  to,  144. 

Gurney,  Mrs.,  reply  to  an  address  by,  149. 

Hammond,  J.  H.,  his  "mud-sill  "  theory,  90. 
Hartford,  Ct.,  speech  at,  108. 
Henry,  Dr.  A.  G  ,  letter  to,  76. 
Herndon,  William  H.,  letter  to,  19. 
Homestead  Law.  L.  endorses,  118. 
Hooker,  General  Joseph,  letter  to,  155. 
Hunter,  General  David,  letter  to,  140. 

Immigrants,  no  discrimination  against,  80,  118. 

Inaugural  Address,  First,  on  March  4,  1861,  122. 

Inaugural  Address,  Second,  on  March  4, 1861, 175  ;  L.'s 
comments  on,  176. 

Indiana  Legislature,  remarks  to,  177. 

Indiana  Regiment,  remarks  to  an,  177. 

Indianapolis,  Ind.,  remarks  at,  116. 

Internal  Improvements,  L.  in  candidacy  for  Illinois 
legislature  announces  himself  in  favor  of,  i  ;  speech  in 
Congress  on,  June  20,  1848,  16  ;  reply  to  charge  of 
inequality  in,  17 ;  absurdity  of  paying  for  them  with 
tonnage  duties,  18. 


Revolution  of  1776  compared  with  temperance  revolu- 
tion, 7. 

Richmond  Enquirer,  The,  invents  phrase  "State 
equality,"  47. 

Robertson,  George,  letter  to,  40. 

Rosecrans,  General  William  S.,  letter  to,  158. 

Secession.     See  Union,  The. 

Seymour,  Governor  Horatio,  letter  to,  163. 

Sharpe,  H.  D.,  letter  to,  76. 

Slavery  (see  also  Democratic  Party;  Government; 
Labor ;  Union,  The :  Republican  Party),  abolition  of, 
conjoined  with  temperance  reform,  8 ;  duty  of  free 
States  to  let  it  alone  in  slave  States,  and  to  resist  its 
extension  into  Territories,  n;  Henry  Clay  in  favor 
of  gradual  emancipation,  25;  L.  denounces  extremists 
on  either  side  of  question,  26 ;  opposed  to  natural 
justice,  28,  29,  30;  extension  into  Territories,  29; 
opposed  to  Declaration  of  Independence,  29,  40; 
Northern  responsibility  for,  30 ;  inadequacy  of  depor- 
tation of  negroes  to  remedy,  31?  L.  tolerates  Fugi- 
tive Slave  Law,  31 ;  territorial  extension  of,  would 
justify  African  slave-trade,  32,  81  ;  humanity  of  the 
negro,  32  ;  Southerners  despise  the  slave-dealer,  33  ; 
government  of  another  is  despotism,  34,  61,  74  ;  con- 
stitutional relations  of,  35,  87,  112;  comparison  of 
Maine  and  South  Carolina,  35  ;  territorial  extension 
of,  a  source  of  strife  between  North  and  South,  37, 
72  ;  foreign  view  of  American,  39;  failure  of  gradual 
emancipation  in  Kentucky,  40 ;  renders  Fourth  of 
July  meaningless,  40 ;  hopeless  condition  of  the  Ameri- 
can slave,  41 ;  "  Can  the  nation  continue  half  slave 
and  half  free?"  41 ;  L.'s  experience  with,  42;  L.  votes 
for  Wilmot  Proviso,  42  ;  Madison  avows  word  slave 
ought  not  to  appear  in  Constitution,  43  ;  North  will 
not,  and  South  shall  not  disrupt  the  Union,  44,  45, 
95,  106 ;  Unionist  weaklings,  46 ;  human  equality 
central  idea  of  our  government,  46,  47;  "State  equal- 
ity," invention  of  Southerners,  47  ;  marrying  a  black 
woman,  48,  55,  65 ;  meaning  of  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  48,  56,  57,  60,  69,  74 ;  Republican 
view  of,  contrasted  with  Democratic,  51,  67;  "A 
house  divided  against  itself,"  52  ;  the  conspiracy  in  re 
Dred  Scott  decision,  52  ;  "  squatter  sovereignty,"  54, 
61,  71,  81,  85  ;  Douglas's  construction  of  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence,  57,  66 ;  Douglas's  doctr'*:2  of 
unfriendly  legislation  to  exclude  slavery  from  Terri- 
tories, 62,  71,  75;  Jefferson's  view  of,  66;  Douglas's 
view  of,  67,  74 ;  L's  view  of,  69,  74 ;  thp  Fathers,' 

186 


view  of,  70,  105,  in  ;  the  cotton-gin  and,  71  ;  Dred 
Scott  decision  annihilates  popular  sovereignty,  72  ; 
Douglas  an  abolitionist,  75 ;  Southern  man  on  Repub- 
lican ticket,  79,  88 ;  no  compromise  on  extension  of, 
in  Republican  platform,  79 ;  L.  objects  to  radical 
Ohio  Republican  platform,  80;  L.  denounces  Doug- 
las's parallel  between  negro  and  crocodile,  83,  84, 
no;  free  labor  versus  slave,  86,  ne;  Hammond's 
"  mud-sill "  theory,  90  ;  sophistical  pfeas  of  its  advo- 
cates, 107;  vested  interests  in,  108;  L.  endorses 
Seward's  phrase,  "  irrepressible  conflict,"  109 ;  the 
snake  in  the  Union  bed,  no,  115;  no  struggle  be- 
tween white  man  and  negro,  no;  not  a  necessity, 
115;  futility  of  repeating  assurances  not  to  interfere 
with,  in  States,  115;  freedom  the  people's  fight,  116; 
L.  opposes  Fremont's  order  of  military  emancipation, 
135;  L.  offers  compensated  emancipation  with  colon- 
ization to  border  States,  141 ;  L.  urges  colonization 
as  duty  upon  intelligent  negroes,  142  ;  Divine 
guidance  in  question  of,  145;  advantages  and 
disadvantages  of  emancipation,  146  ;  Preliminary 
Emancipation  Proclamation,  149  ;  L.  recommends 
compensated  emancipation  to  Congress,  152  ;  right- 
ousness  of  emancipation,  152,  169;  on  arming  ne- 
groes, 158,  165,  166,  177;  hypocrisy  of  its  advocates, 
169;  war,  God's  judgment  on,  175;  the  ballot,  a 
reward  to  negro  for  effort,  180. 

Speech,  invention  of,  100. 

Speed,  Joshua  F.,  letter  to,  42. 

Speer,  William  S.,  letter  to,  115. 

Springfield.  111.,  speech  against  the  Van  Buren  adminis- 
tration at,  4  ;  address  to  Washingtonian  Society  at,  5  ; 
reply  to  Douglas,  June  26,  1857,  at,  48  ;  speech  at, 
accepting  nomination  for  Senator,  June  16,  1858,  52  ; 
speech  at,  July  17,  1858,  59;  lecture  on  Discoveries, 
Inventions,  and  improvements,  before  Library  Ass'n 
of,  96;  letter  to  James  C.  Conkling  read  at  Union 
meeting  in,  164. 

Taney,  Roger  B.,  conspirator  in  re  Dred  Scott  decision, 

Tariff,  L.  in  candidacy  for  Illinois  legislature  announces 
himself  in  favor  of  a  high  protective  tariff,  i  ;  notes  on 
protection,  jotted  down  while  Congressman-elect, 
Dec.  1847,  9 ;  protection  abolishes  useless  labor  of 
transportation,  9,  119. 

Temperance,  address  to  Washingtonian  Society  of 
Springfield,  111.,  Feb.  22,  1842,  5;  letter  to  George  E. 
Pickett  on,  8 ;  conjoined  with  abolition  of  slavery,  8. 

I87 


Union,  The  (see  also  Slavery),  in  relation  to  slavery,  n; 
not  a  f»ee-love  arrangement?  116;  parallel  between 
State  and  county,  117;  the  crisis  of  secession  artificial, 
1 18  ;  save  the  Union  ship  and  cargo,  120;  shall  be 
preserved,  121, 124,  144;  perpetuity  of,  122  ;  secession 
the  essence  of  anarchy,  124 ;  absurdity  of  secession, 
125  ;  responsibility  for  war  rests  on  secessionists,  126 ; 
sentiment  for,  126;  nature  of  "sovereignty,"  127; 
States  not  sovereign,  127  ;  conspiracy  of  secessionists, 
129;  ability  of  Union  soldiers,  131 ;  war  for,  a  test  of 
popular  government,  132,  133  ;  impossible  to  compro- 
mise with  secessionists,  134;  prophecy  of  glorious 
future  for,  140;  secession  springs  from  men,  not  land, 
151 ;  war  has  justified,  171. 

Vallandigham,  Clement  L.     See  Ohio  Democrats. 
Van  Buren,  Martin  L.,  speech  against  administration 
of,  4. 

War,  The  (see  also  Army,  The  ;  Slavery ;  Union,  The), 
L.  advocates  neighborhood  meetings  in  Missouri  to 
heal  partisan  strife,  174  ;  healing  the  wounds  of,  176. 

Washington,  George,  tribute  to,  8  ;  Life  of,  by  Weems, 
impressed  L.  in  youth,  121. 

Washingtonian  Society,  address  before,  5. 

Weed,  Thurlow,  letter  to,  176. 

West  Virginia,  opinion  on  admission  of,  into  Union,  153. 

Whig  Party,  contrasted  with  Democratic,  4 ;  passing  of 
the,  42 

Wilmot  Proviso.     See  Slavery. 

Wisconsin  State  Agricultural  Fair,  address  before,  89. 

Writing,  invention  of,  102. 

Young  America,  character  of,  96. 
Young  Men,  advice  to,  19. 


